1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 17, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7345 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 7345

An Act To Protect Long Term Tenants From The Impacts Of Expo 86 (Bill M201).

Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 7346

Oral Questions

Meeting with Metro Education Association. Mr. Rose –– 7346

School district budgets. Mr. Rose –– 7346

Omineca Enterprises Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 7347

Landlord-tenant relations, Mr. Blencoe –– 7347

Voters' list. Mr. Hanson –– 7347

Mr. Howard

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Parks –– 7348

On the amendment

Mr. Howard –– 7352

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7354

Mr. Barnes –– 7358

Hon. A. Fraser –– 7362

Mr. Skelly –– 7365

Division –– 7367

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 7368

MONDAY, MARCH 17, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to tell you that we have in our gallery today

His Excellency SJS. Chhatwal, High Commissioner of India, and Mrs.

Chhatwal. They are accompanied by Mr. J.C. Sharma, consul-general of

India, and Mrs. Sharma. Will the House please make them welcome.

MR. HANSON:

I wonder if the House would join me in applauding the tremendous

achievement of the University of Victoria Vikings basketball team,

which this last weekend achieved its seventh consecutive national title

by winning the top award for a basketball team in Canada. The

achievements of the coaches, Ken Shields and his wife Kathy Shields,

who work with the Vikings and Vikettes, have truly made the greater

Victoria area the basketball capital of Canada; and it is clearly also

the sports capital of Canada in terms of those teams and individuals,

both elite and amateur, who are making outstanding achievements.

HON. MR. SMITH: I join the member for Victoria in

congratulating the Vikings. I was just on the phone now to invite them

down here on behalf of the Provincial Secretary and the Legislature.

Maybe we'll have them in the gallery tomorrow, if we can get them here.

It's quite an achievement to have seven consecutive national

championships, and to win the last two or three when they were not

ranked or rated number one during the year by the experts, but had to

fight hard to win their spurs. Also, to be comfortably up in the final

game, only to have their lead clipped in the second half from 14 points

to one, and then in the last five minutes, with the kind of reserve

that apparently only Shields gives these teams.... You know, Mr.

Speaker, when they work out, they do a two-hour practice and then they

run outside for an hour — uphill. So I tell you, it's a tough team.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have a pleasant duty to

perform today. I don't very often have people from the Cariboo riding,

but today in your gallery Miss Hanna Krause is here from Puntzi Lake in

the Chilcotin with Miss Melissa Gruenwald from Anahim Lake. These young

ladies are down here taking their first year at UVic, and I would like

the House to welcome them.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker,

along with other members of the Metro Education Association visiting

today in the House are my constituents Anne Kachmar, a Coquitlam

trustee; Karen Phillips, a Coquitlam parent; and Mike Lombardi, teacher

and president of the Coquitlam Teachers' Association. Would the House

welcome them too.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody and welcome our mutual three constituents to the House.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming

those on the floor of this House and in the public gallery who were fortunate

enough to be born Irish.

MR. DAVIS:

In the galleries today we have from North Vancouver representatives of

the parents, the school trustees and the teachers: Lauren Hems,

representing the parents; Dorothy Lynas, long-term school trustee from

North Vancouver; and Andy Krawczyk, president of the North Vancouver

Teachers' Association.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, very

quickly without making a specific introduction, I want to take great

issue with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the member for

Victoria, who alleged, quite in good faith, that greater Victoria was

the amateur sports capital of Canada, when we have had no fewer than

six members of the national men's and women's ski team hailing from

Rossland-Trail constituency, all world-class athletes, not just

outstanding Canadians but outstanding Canadians on a world-class basis.

HON. MR. PELTON:

Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two constituents of mine

and their son, Mr. and Mrs. Al and Lennie Clark and Monte, who is

studying political science at the University of Victoria. I would ask

the members if they would kindly welcome them to the House today.

Mr.

Speaker, while I'm on my feet, if you and the other members would

indulge me for one moment, I have a little athletic award to speak

about myself.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and members of

this Legislature, that after 32 years of trying very, very hard, the

Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School basketball team, the Ramblers, over

the weekend won the B.C. AA boys' basketball championship. More than

that, it was a double-header because the boys' basketball team from the

secondary school in Mission, which is also in the wonderful riding of

Dewdney, also finished in the finals. Would everybody congratulate them.

MR. WILLIAMS: I must revise my plans, Mr. Speaker; clearly the election is closer than I thought.

I'd

ask the House to welcome Ms. Mary Hogan and Patricia Chauncey, who are

district parent reps from Vancouver East who, I'm sure, are pleased to

work with Vancouver's new school board.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, Les Lee Lowe, a hardworking member of the education

community of Burnaby Edmonds, is in the gallery. I would like the House

to bid her welcome. I regret that she hasn't won anything over the

weekend.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting the

Legislature today are 80 grade 11 students from Delta Secondary School,

with their teacher, Mr. B. Putnam. I would ask the House to give them a

warm welcome.

[2:15]

Hon. Mr.

Curtis tabled a report on amounts remitted or refunded under the

Taxation (Rural Area) Act during the calendar year 1985.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the fiscal year 1984-85.

[ Page 7346 ]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROTECT LONG TERM

TENANTS FROM THE IMPACTS OF EXPO 86

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled

An Act to Protect Long Term Tenants from the Impacts of Expo 86.

MR. BLENCOE:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill standing in my name

intituled

An Act to Protect Long Term Tenants from the Impacts of Expo

86. I ask that it be introduced and read a first time now.

This

bill is introduced to protect low-income tenants in Vancouver. There is

an immediate need for provincial assistance. We had hoped that the

government, given that we have been back in session a week, would have

introduced their own piece of legislation. The sponsors of this bill,

and others, anticipated the long-term tenant problem in the east end of

Vancouver. We anticipated that they would need powers to deal with

problems of long-term tenancy in rooming-house accommodation. Currently

long-term residents of hotels and rooming-houses under monthly

contracts are excluded from protection under the Residential Tenancy

Act.

This bill provides for protection of tenants of

rooming-houses paying $340 or less per month and who have occupied the

premises for more than six months. The boundaries of the protection are

to be established by municipal bylaw. The bill provides for no increase

in rent more than 5 percent, and this bill would end on October 13,

1986. It would also provide for no evictions without just cause, and

the reasons for eviction are outlined in the bill.

Suffice

it to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is our understanding and impression

that this legislation is required and that the people of British

Columbia are requesting immediate action on behalf of tenants in

Vancouver who are being directly affected by evictions. I move this

bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201 introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MEETING WITH METRO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

MR. ROSE:

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to ask a question

of the new Minister of Education. Last Friday the Premier promised that

the new Minister of Education would meet with representatives from the

Metro Education Association, or MEA. With both the Premier and the new

Minister of Education promising consultation, why has the minister

snubbed teachers, trustees and parents from all over the lower

mainland, who are only seeking adequate funds for B.C. children? Why

does the minister fail to recognize that ordinary people have had

enough confrontation from this government?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I think the member opposite knows that I have been meeting with

teachers and with school trustees; I have met with the president of the

Teachers' Federation and representatives of his executive and with the

president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. It was not much

longer than, I guess, a week ago that the member for Coquitlam-Moody

and I and the leader of the Conservative Party in B.C. and the leader

of the Liberal Party attended a forum which some 300 teachers attended.

This allowed us all to express our views and to answer questions. I can

assure the member that most of my time since I have been appointed has

been spent meeting with individuals and groups concerning education, in

order that I can become fairly familiar with my portfolio so that I can

undertake some of the tasks that I have been asked to do.

With

regard to the Metro Education Association, who wrote me and then sent

me a telegram which said that they would arrive at my office on March

17 at 12:30 in the afternoon, and that the underfunded budgets are a

matter of grave concern.... Unfortunately, I was at a meeting, due to

my ministerial responsibilities, and my executive assistant responded,

and I quote: "In reply to your telegram of March 7 to the Hon. J.

Hewitt, Minister of Education, I regret to inform you that Mr. Hewitt

will not be available in his office on March 17 due to a previously

scheduled board meeting." That was with the Crown corporation of B.C.

Systems Corporation.

I am not avoiding this group, but I

would suggest to the member that we have other responsibilities than

just responding to interested groups who wish to arrive on your

doorstep with TV cameras and try to create a media issue. I will meet

them at the appropriate time.

SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGETS

MR. ROSE:

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the new Minister of Education will soon learn

to inform the Premier of his

schedule so the Premier won't be

misleading people in the newspaper and other places.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE:

Promises, promises. Does the minister realize that 58 of 75 districts

have indicated that they can't maintain existing programs on the

budgets they were given, and that 24 of 75 districts are actually

receiving less than last year? Has the minister decided to revise the

framework to meet district needs?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

What I am attempting to do is to receive all the input from the various

school boards to understand their concerns. As the member well knows,

the date for budget submission was March 15 — last Saturday. I am

meeting with my staff to look at submissions that have come in. We have

to respond to them by April 20, and they have to set their tax rates by

May 1. Those dates are set. I can assure the member that everything

will be given consideration within the ability of the taxpayers of this

province to fund school districts and school boards and teachers.

MR. ROSE:

My final supplementary is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In 1975 the

Premier claimed in an election brochure that the present system of

financing education through property taxation was, to paraphrase,

"unfair and outmoded." With Maple Ridge facing a $297 a year increase

per single family, and Kamloops a whopping $600 per single family

dwelling, when does the Premier intend to return the industrial tax

base to local districts with grants in lieu for those districts without

adequate industrial base?

[ Page

7347 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: My congratulations to the member for his landslide

victory over the weekend.

Let

me respond to the part not contained in the last question, where he

alleged I was acting as appointment secretary for the Ministry of

Education. I have not assured a time, but I have assured anyone who has

a legitimate role to play in education and has asked that the Minister

of Education will meet with them, as he meets with various groups who

are putting forward a case in competition with other very worthy

endeavours in education for the funds contained in the Excellence in

Education fund.

Now to the tax base. I think it's very

interesting to note that the last figures I have on this show that the

homeowner in British Columbia pays approximately 8 percent of the cost

of local education. When you look at a province like Ontario, if you

take not only homeowners but all land base, you'll find that in fact in

that province it pays for about 90 percent of the cost of education,

from the information I have. In this province, Mr. Speaker, the

homeowner gets a far better break. When you start to consider, it is

only 8 percent of the figures we had last.... And, of course, this

year's budgets haven't been completed. Only 8 percent of the cost is

home by homeowners. I think that is a remarkably small amount of the

cost of education, for homeowners, compared with homeowners in other

provinces.

OMINECA ENTERPRISES LTD.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. On December 2, 1985, the

Premier in answer to a question by myself in regard to Omineca

Enterprises Ltd., a logging sawmill operation in the Fort Nelson area,

undertook that he would request a report from the Minister of Forests

concerning the above-mentioned company and the problems that that

company was having in the Fort Nelson area. I'd like to ask the

Premier: have you received a copy of the report?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read it.

MR. LEA: I understand, then, Mr. Premier, that you've received the report but haven't read it yet.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I have not yet read it.

LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS

MR. BLENCOE:

A question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the

minister responsible for the residential tenancy branch. The minister

has twice denied in this House that he has any responsibility for

landlord-tenant relations in the province of British Columbia. Will the

minister inform the House when this responsibility was transferred away

from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and by what means?

It is our understanding that you are still the minister responsible.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I have never denied that I have responsibility

for administering

an act. The problem that the hon. member had was trying to

have this ministry look after areas that were clearly the responsibility of

another ministry. If he wants to ask something about the Residential Tenancy

Act, we'll look into it for him.

MR. BLENCOE:

Concern has been expressed over a loophole in the Residential Tenancy

Act which allows premises classed as hotels to escape the requirements

of landlord tenant legislation. Is the minister aware of this specific

concern, and has he decided to take any action to deal with this

loophole?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Clearly the member didn't

hear very well. I said that items that fell within the purview of the

Residential Tenancy Act would be clearly dealt with. If you are talking

about hotels, you're talking about the innkeepers' act, which does not

fall within this purview.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister aware of the description of long-term tenancy? Would the minister advise this House whether he deems...?

[2:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I note with interest that the member

has commenced his legislative program. It seems to me we have a bill

before the House that deals with the question he has posed. The bill

has just been introduced. I wonder if the Chair would correct me if I

am wrong, but I don't think we can question with respect to.... The

member is clearly speaking about long-term tenancy. I see on Orders of the Day for today a bill entitled

An Act to Protect Loniz Term Tenants from the Impacts of Expo 86.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, if the Chair were to specifically interpret all the rules

that guide us in question period, we would be in some difficulty in

entertaining questions at all. It is therefore incumbent upon members

when asking questions to at least give some consideration to the

guidelines that bind us for question period.

VOTERS' LIST

MR. HANSON:

I have a question to the Provincial Secretary in her responsibility as

the Minister responsible for voting rights in British Columbia. As the

minister is aware, one in four British Columbians are currently not on

the voters' list. In her constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain,

it's closer to one in three individuals 19 years of age and over who

are not on the voters' list.

The chief electoral officer,

Mr. Goldberg, has recently responded to my letters to the minister

requesting that emergency action be taken to increase the numbers on

the voters' list. He points out that many people may be disqualified

because of residency requirements, some through bribery or

impersonation, some through conviction of treason, some through being

incarcerated in a mental facility; some may lack.... Or in his words:

"Initiative is required on the part of the public to get on the list."

My question to the minister is: in a computer age when large data banks

exist within the government service, is it acceptable that one in four

British Columbians would be omitted from the voters' list in the run up

to a provincial election?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question, and I know that

he will understand when I tell him through you that I haven't had an

opportunity up to this point in time with my new responsibilities to

look into that part of his question — which he was

[ Page 7348 ]

kind enough to send firstly to the newspaper and then to me. I will be very pleased to answer that when I have time.

MR. HANSON: It was the reverse, but it may have been just a minute or two.

Mr.

Speaker, in appreciating what the minister is saying with respect to

her understanding of the act, I'd like to ask her to note the fact that

the act had not changed with respect to allowing groups to have access

to voters' registration cards so that organizations and individuals

could take

part in having a full voters' list developed. In an age when

the computer banks are present, I'm sure the minister would like the

next election contest to involve 100 percent of the voters' list so

that everyone could make their views known about the record of this

government and whether they are ready for change.

question: would the minister undertake to allow cards to be made

available to organizations and groups and then to be passed on to the

returning officers and chief electoral officers, so that that voting

process could take place?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to look into the member's question.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a supplementary question to the

Minister of Finance, the holder of the purse, and ask the minister

whether he is aware that the current system of denying groups and/or

organizations access to cards to assist in the registration process is

costing, for mail alone — for stamps, for postage — $1.70 per

registered voter for a person to get on the voters' list up until this

time, and whether the minister would seek to make that known to the

Provincial Secretary so that cards can be available to groups who want

to assist, and thus save the taxpayer that amount of money?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has been in this House and elsewhere

long enough to know that the question should be directed to the

Provincial Secretary. While I am responsible for the treasury, each

minister is responsible for his or her expenditures. So you have the

wrong....

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't care.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's not a question of not caring, Mr. Speaker, the rules....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There's another man shaking in righteous indignation, Mr. Speaker. That's all they can do over there these days.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's quite well established. The question should be directed to my colleague, the Provincial Secretary.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, after my

remarks Friday afternoon, I was intending to initially just discuss

some of the highlights, the positive points, in the throne speech.

However,

I had occasion to see an interview with the Leader of the Opposition

which was televised yesterday morning, and I was so surprised by some

of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that I feel compelled

to deal with some of the issues that he raised and some of his

responses.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What set off

the new thrust to my remarks this afternoon was what appeared to be a

very straightforward question from one of the interviewers, and that

was: "Mr. Skelly, if you were Premier of this province, would you scrap

the compensation stabilization program?" Well, the Leader of the

Opposition didn't equivocate; he boldly — well, perhaps I should say

meekly —- after beating around the bush, said yes, he would scrap the

compensation stabilization program.

Now I think that would

have very significant consequences for our economy, and I think if one

were to follow the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, not just

during that interview but also in his remarks in rebuttal to the throne

speech, one can see that the thread of the opposition's position with

respect to the economic program is to adopt some foreign economic

policy, in all likelihood that of the so-called Australian accord. I

find that even more puzzling because in his remarks yesterday — at

least they were recorded, I guess, earlier in the week but telecast

yesterday morning — the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who

unfortunately is not here today to comment, should he wish, stated that

he was aware that, unlike Australia, which is a national economy, of

course, British Columbia is tied in very directly, inextricably, with

the American economy.

We, of course, having a provincial

economy, have limited ability to determine some aspects of our economy,

but more than that, we are inextricably tied in with the U.S. economy.

Yet the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that this province adopt

the type of accord that is known as the Australian accord and, in

effect, index public sector wages to the cost of living. He states

that, knowing full well that such an economic measure would clearly

result in very substantially increased inflation.

I find it

surprising that the Leader of the Opposition would appreciate, on one

hand, the significance of the American economy and how our economy is

affected by that, ignoring the importance of that very instrumental

factor in our economy, and then say that we should adopt a national

economy that has absolutely no applicability to our situation. If we

were to adopt that situation, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests,

all it would do is further decrease our competitive position in the

global trading village.

Either the Leader of the Opposition

is totally taken by another socialist state's system of attempting to

deal with their economic problems, or the alternative — and the only

alternative, I can conclude — is that he doesn't understand economic

policy. It would be unfortunate if that were the proper conclusion, but

it's one that I was being forced to develop after hearing his remarks.

The

one solace that I took from his remarks of yesterday, in conjunction

with his remarks recorded in his rebuttal to the throne speech, was in

a comment he passed in this House just last week: "We in the opposition

know that words are the easy part." Perhaps that is another example of

the opposition trying to come up with words that appear to be buzzwords

or have instant popularity, something along the lines of hoping that

using the words "confrontation," " non-confrontation, "

[ Page 7349 ]

"consultation" or "non-consultation" would somehow set them aside from the record of this government.

Well,

I think it's a fair conclusion for one to note that

whereas the

opposition is prepared to put forth words, so-called policies that

aren't viable, this government is prepared — and once again it is

reflected in the throne speech — to encourage positive actions,

programs which have positive results. I think immediately of programs

and projects like the SkyTrain....

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, the debt bomb.

MR. PARKS:

The second member for Vancouver East refers to it as the "debt bomb."

Now I'm sure he thinks that trite expression is somehow defensible, but

I would suggest that to those thousands upon thousands — literally tens

of thousands — of commuters who use that service each and every work

day, and to the 60,000 to 70,000 obviously noncommuters but interested

British Columbians who are using it every weekend, it's much more than

a debt bomb.

What it is is state of the art commuter

technology. The SkyTrain is probably one of the most significant, if

not the most significant, economic development proposals that this

province has seen in years. I wonder where the members from Burnaby are

when they note the economic development in Metrotown? I wonder where

the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is when he

considers what's happening to his constituency as SkyTrain goes through

it. I know that the member from New Westminster is very pleased to see

the billion-dollar-plus development going into his constituency by

SkyTrain. I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues, the two members

from Surrey, when I say we can hardly wait for that economic impetus to

come to our constituencies. Surrey is going to be blessed with the

crossing over the Fraser to Scott Road later this year. I can only hope

that the park-and-ride facilities currently being constructed in

Coquitlam — one in the Lougheed Highway and King Edward vicinity, one

in our Newtown Centre vicinity — are but a prelude to an early

announcement for the formal extension of SkyTrain into Coquitlam.

Besides

SkyTrain, we have the Annacis Island crossing. It was my pleasure last

week — actually, my first official function as the parliamentary

secretary to the Minister of Transportation and Highways — to attend

the official closing-in ceremony of that fantastic engineering feat. I

understand it's the largest suspended bridge of its type in the world.

When one is up on that bridge — I believe some 30 stories high —-

looking at those two pillars suspending that structure by wire cable,

one marvels again at the engineering feat performed there. But again,

much more important than that engineering feat is not only the economic

impetus, but the overall liveability of the lower mainland impact of

that particular construction. We are all more than aware of the tens of

thousands of jobs that have been created by that particular project.

Unlike

some of the comments I have heard from the opposition as to municipal

work projects, this megaproject, as some have referred to it, this

economic project, is going to have a tremendous impact on the economic

expansion of the south side of the Fraser River. I know the hon.

Speaker of this House made a very determined effort to have that

facility constructed, and it was only after extensive lobbying, if you

will, that that particular facility was finally approved. Now, of

course, as we see, it is a fact.

It's interesting to look

back.... Again, I had occasion to go through some of the library

records, and it wasn't three years ago — in fact, I'm looking at an

April 1983 issue of the North Delta Sentinel — that the NDP candidate

at that time, one Mr. Moser, actually was suggesting that the NDP

government, had it been elected — thank goodness they were not — would

not have gone ahead with the Annacis crossing. That caught my eye, and

I then had occasion to go through the entire article. The first comment

was alarming enough, but not only were they prepared not to go ahead

with the Annacis crossing, apparently at that time.... As we've heard

from various members in the opposition, NDP policy is established by

the party, and their caucus adheres to that verbatim. But apparently

caucus policy at that time was that not only would they be against the

Annacis Bridge crossing, but they would also be against any further

funds into northeast coal development or B.C. Place. Their only concern

at that time was a rapid transit service into Surrey. That's the type

of negativism it seems we’re getting far too much of from the

opposition.

[2:45]

We've seen B.C.

Place. a project of this government, move forth and become — as we've

probably all heard in the last couple of days — the most desirable

indoor baseball facility that major leaguers have seen. I was very

pleased and proud, as a British Columbian, to hear the members of the

Padres and the Cubs, who have just concluded a recent exhibition

series, speak so well of our facility. As a former director of the B.C.

Lions football club —- and, I must add, defending Grey Cup champions —-

we know that we have the very finest facilities in all of Canada. Even

good old Toronto is envious of what we have here in Vancouver.

MR. WILLIAMS: Look at all the food banks they're happy about too!

MR. PARKS:

Once again we have the chirping of the second member for Vancouver

East. He's alluding to some difficulties with respect to the food

banks. He's suggesting that there....

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, some difficulties — while you give million-dollar champagne parties. It's a disgraceful misuse of funds.

MR. PARKS: He is trying to suggest that there is some mutual exclusivity between providing social services and providing economic growth.

MR. REID: The NDP voted against the bridge, so maybe they won't use it.

MR. PARKS: I'm sure they will, hon. member.

Getting

back to the chirping I was alluding to from the second member for

Vancouver East, B.C. Place is much more than just a domed stadium. B.C.

Place owns all of those lands on which this phenomenal project that

we're about to see — Expo 86 — has been constructed. Within six months

after the end of what's guaranteed to be a phenomenally successful

world's fair, B.C. Place is going to commence one of the largest urban

redevelopment programs anyone has seen, certainly that has been seen in

Canada.

[ Page 7350 ]

MR. WILLIAMS:

You mean you're going to knock down all those buildings that you spent

a billion dollars to put up? You build them up and then you knock them

down.

MR. PARKS: Well, the chirping continues, and

it's interesting, because it illustrates the total lack of

understanding of economic impact. Yes, hon. member, we are going to....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. The Chair has recognized the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam, but there seem to be other conversations on.

If the member would speak and others remain quiet, it would be

appreciated.

MR. PARKS: Although, quite frankly, I

find the chirping and the comments from the peanut gallery most

informative of the lack of understanding of some of the issues I'm

attempting to discuss. As I said earlier, we're talking about an Expo

program that is going to be coming to fruition momentarily. On May 2,

when Their Royal Highnesses join with the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister and

our Premier and this province begins, once again, to rekindle its pride

in itself, when even members that would be perhaps a bit negative today

will see the benefits that are going to come to British Columbia, not

just for the 165 days of the fair, Mr. Speaker, but a legacy in

themselves....

Again, we keep hearing this chirping: "What

about the poor? What about the food banks?" I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what

they think, or how they think anyone is going to attend to those social

services that are so vital to our way of society. Clearly, the NDP do

not have a corner on social conscience. Often they hold out a

presentation that they do, but they do not. If we're going to have the

phenomenal social programs that we have in this province, we have to be

able to afford them. They don't herald the fact that one of every three

dollars that this government spends is spent in health care. They don't

herald the fact that when you take health care and you take education

and you take human resources, you're talking about 66 percent-plus of

this province's budget.

That portion of our budget, Mr.

Speaker, is not for the job creation component. I'm sure that some of

us in the government ranks realize, but clearly, from the remarks from

the opposition ranks, they don't understand — or if they do, they often

forget —- that it's the private sector and the people creating jobs and

creating taxes that pay for those social services. So although we now

have Expo soon to open, and we have a $1 billion project, with

anticipated $3 billion to $4 billion economic spinoffs this year, they

don't think that's fantastic for our province. They don't think that's

going to help feed the poor.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS:

Here it is, another ill-informed comment, Mr. Speaker: "We've got to

pay for it." That's right. Well, no, it's not right, hon. member. If

you take the Expo budget, you realize that who is paying for the Expo

budget are the national participants, the corporate participants, the

people who are attending. Contrary to the remarks of the Leader of the

Opposition, there is not going to be a $400 million to $500 million

deficit, as he suggested. The $400 million to $500 million deficit —

those remarks were attributable to Mr. Pattison. I have inquired of

that office, and Mr. Pattison has not ever, to the best of his

recollection, made that statement. To the best of his recollection, the

only estimated deficit that he's referred to is the $250 million to

$300 million.

Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the

Opposition is quoted — I can refer to his comments in Hansard — as

saying that whatever the deficit might be, it's going to be on the

backs of the taxpayers, and it's going to be the true legacy for Expo.

Surely that member knows that that is inaccurate. Provision has been

made for whatever the deficit is, that it be taken care of out of what

I call the gamblers' funds — the lottery proceeds. That deficit will

not fall upon the backs of the taxpayers, not this generation nor any

future generation. What the legacy of Expo is going to be is not only a

phenomenal impetus to tourism, which will probably become the number

one industry in this province.... I wonder why my colleagues in the

opposition ranks, Mr. Speaker, are not proud that British Columbia has

so much natural beauty that we would become the number one tourist

attraction in North America.

I read in a recent B.C. Business

magazine that a trillion dollars a year is spent on tourism. Why don't

we feel that we should take our fair share of that? Actually, with Expo

86, Mr. Speaker, we're going to see British Columbia finally taking its

fair share of that tourism budget.

The throne speech refers

to a number of programs that this government has embarked on in the

past year or so, and it quite accurately suggests that they will be

continued. I know the opposition is concerned about the poor, but then

again, so is each and every member of this House. How we can assist the

poor and the less fortunate is to have that economic development that I

continually allude to in my comments. It's interesting to note some of

the very positive consumer and business conditions that have taken

place in the last 12 months.

If I may refer to a couple of

statistics.... I appreciate that at times they are boring, Mr. Speaker,

but I think that in light of the very positive news, I'm going to

insist we look at them,

First, with respect to actual

employment in British Columbia. In February, 1985, we had but 1,184,000

people employed. As of this past month — this past February — we had

1,234,000 people employed, an increase of 50,000-plus jobs, or an

increase of 4.2 percent. That's not fantastic, but it's sure a great

change from the early years in this decade. I know the opposition like

to crow about how they could do so much better if they were in

government.

It's interesting to note that during the same

timespan Manitoba, which has the only other NDP government at this

time, had a mere 14,000-job increase, or about a 3 percent increase. So

we have clearly outpaced that province, as far as economic impact goes.

The

consumer price index in British Columbia rose a mere 3.2 per cent last

year. I think that's a very positive indication that the economy is now

in as stable a condition as we've ever seen it. From that new solid

base, we're seeing things like the sales tax for the first 10 months of

fiscal 1985-86 having an 8.4 percent increase. For those who are

proponents of the consumer-generated recovery, that's a very positive

sign. In 1985 manufacturing shipments increased 8 percent. That's an

extremely positive sign. Housing starts in British Columbia last year

totalled 17,969; that's an increase of 11.1 percent. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that's probably the most significant statistic of the bunch.

[ Page 7351 ]

There is optimism in our economy, notwithstanding what the opposition has to say. There is positive....

MR. WILLIAMS: Big deal.

MR. PARKS:

"Big deal." This is what we hear once again from the second member for

Vancouver East. As if those British Columbian families who are now in

those 18,000 new housing units don't think it's a big deal. To those

British Columbians who are being helped by this government's economic

policy, it is a big deal, Mr. Speaker. It's unfortunate they don't

understand that. Perhaps as time goes on they will, but for the moment

they clearly do not understand that.

I see that I don't

have that many minutes left in my speech, Mr. Speaker, so I'm going to,

if I may, refer specifically to how I see a number of the programs of

this government very positively impacting on my constituency.

The Partners in Enterprise program is probably one of the sleepers that this government has introduced.

Interjections.

MR. PARKS:

It's interesting that we had some guffaws of laughter from the back

bench of the opposition, once again not understanding the importance of

setting the economic structure, the inviting environment, for

investment. I guess it's two weeks ago today, Mr. Speaker, that my

constituency, the district of Coquitlam, agreed to sign Partners in

Enterprise. I have been made aware of two projects that are going ahead

in Coquitlam: one is a multimillion-dollar expansion at Crown Forest,

where they are talking about dry-kiln and other facilities.

MR. REID: That's positive results.

MR. PARKS:

Very positive results. And the other is a $400,000 expansion to

Vancouver Bottlers. Now those are two specific job-creating,

tax-creating projects that I've just become aware of in the last two

weeks. I expect there are more, and I'll be pleased to report to the

House next time I speak, as soon as I hear about them. Already within

two weeks there we have a number of millions of dollars being injected,

or soon to be injected, into my municipality's economy, creating jobs

and creating economic growth.

Interjections.

MR. PARKS:

I note that.... We hear the chirping continue from the opposition, Mr.

Speaker, but that shouldn't slow down the government, when they see a

number of their projects coming to fruition, and the very positive

impact in our government.

A few weeks back I had the

pleasure, along with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), to

officially open the Mary Hill bypass. I know that that has had a

tremendous impact on his constituency, and right through our

colleague's constituency of Coquitlam-Moody, yet we don't hear members

from the opposition proclaiming how positive those developments are.

Sure, it's a few hundred thousand dollars to do that. Sure, it assisted

the commuters. Sure, it made investment more viable for that whole

stretch on the north side of the Fraser River. But do we hear the

opposition acknowledging the progressive and positive steps? No, they

don't. They would rather chirp, as I refer to it, and try to make

political points by being really negative. I guess that's the biggest

disappointment I have with the comments from the opposition: they

insist on being negative.

[3:00]

Coquitlam we have, in downtown revitalization, an obvious example of

the municipality, the provincial government and the merchants working

together to revitalize their area, trying to make an area that has a

tremendous amount of cultural heritage a more desirable place to visit.

The program is underway as far as planning is concerned, and I hope to

see the tangible result in time for Expo.

I think the

provincial government has shown tremendous generosity, to be honest.

Just last week the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Kempf) was in Coquitlam and agreed to turn over to Coquitlam for park

purposes in our town centre a 100-acre parksite referred to as Lafarge

Park. That's valued at approximately $4 million today, and all it is,

in effect, is an empty former gravel pit. But the potential there of

the provincial government and the municipality working in concert is

nothing short of tremendous. That is going to be the new town centre,

the new focus of the Coquitlams, and it is with the encouragement of

the municipality by Lands, Parks and Housing that such a program will

be off to a faster start than it otherwise would have been.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A very short distance from

that park we have the Westwood Plateau lands, in which the same

ministry, through its housing branch, is attempting to encourage

development for new housing starts. I know that, compared to the doom

and gloom that we hear from the opposition, it may not sound like much,

but in one very small townhouse complex 42 units were sold last month.

Those 42 units illustrate to me tremendous optimism on the part of

people — looking at my constituency, at least, Mr. Speaker.

expect that the working relationship among municipalities, the

provincial government, industry and volunteers will continue. I have

just received notification today that the Coquitlam public library, in

concert with the municipality and the provincial government, is about

to build new central facilities. Now for those who are not familiar

with my constituency, that is a tremendous landmark. In less than eight

years the Coquitlam public library system has come from a small area in

one secondary school to three branches; and now, with the very generous

assistance of a $400,000 grant from our provincial government, it is

about to build a new central library facility. I think that type of

working together of the various components in our communities is going

to cause the optimism to return to British Columbians.

closing, I would like to express a hope, and hopefully it's going to be

manifested. I have been told that those who attended, or at least lived

in the Expo 67 area in Montreal.... There were a lot of naysayers and a

lot of doom-and-gloom comments from the opposition in government and

the media. I am expecting, as most British Columbians are, that Expo 86

is going to be a phenomenal success for this province. I would only

hope that the members of the opposition will catch the Expo spirit,

catch the B.C. spirit, and attempt to be a little more positive.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, just a brief commentary about what we have just heard from the member from Dawn

[ Page 7352 ]

Development

or MaiIlardville-Coquitlam. When he starts talking, as he has at great

length, about the position that the New Democrats have taken and do

take on subject matters, his imagination and his negative partisan

enthusiasm far outreaches his grasp of truthfulness. There isn't an

ounce of truth in what he said in his remarks relating to the position

that New Democrats have taken on certain subjects or that we intend to

take.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just a moment,

please. We at times have conflicting opinions in this House, but we

must respect the honour of another hon. member. Please continue.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, there stands a notice of amendment in my name on the order paper

which I would move right at the outset, seconded by the member for Vancouver

Centre, adding the words: "But this House regrets that the speech of His

Honour fails to meet the expectations and hopes of our people that they can

place their trust in the current government and that it fails to indicate that

the government cares about the economic and social plight of ordinary British

Columbians.

That's

what I want to direct my remarks to and emphasize the question of

trust, because a great deal of the relationship between the electorate

in this province, people in this province — as there are people in all

jurisdictions under our system in a political democracy — must rest

upon trust and upon faith. People must have a feeling that their

government is working. Whether they voted for them or not is not

material at this point. But they must have the sensitivity and the

feeling that their government is working for them in the broad sense;

that their government cares about ordinary citizens and that they have

trust in their government. I submit that that is not the case in this

instance with this government.

Time and time again over the

past decade or dozen years since this particular government under the

leadership of this particular Premier has been in existence they've

broken that trust. They have misled the general public on many

occasions, have established a pattern of activity that is identified in

this fashion: the government says one thing for political purposes and

does something else. That's their history and that's their record. Let

me give you a few instances why this Legislature should support this

particular amendment and exhibit that it too has no trust in this

government. And I would submit to members opposite that if they vote

their conscience, if they vote the way their soul and their heart tells

them, they'd vote for this amendment. But I doubt that that will be the

case. They'll vote as they're ordered to do in order to maintain the

facade of respectability.

Let's look at BCRIC as an example. BCRIC was brought into existence by

the current Premier. He went around this province and told people it was such

a good thing. He urged them to cash in their insurance policies in order to

get the money to buy BCRIC shares. He urged people to mortgage their houses

in order to get the cash to buy BCRIC shares. When it started to go sour, when

it was shown that BCRIC, the experiment, suffered from political interference

by this Premier and this government, he turned his back on it and said: "I

don't know anything about BCRIC. It's a private corporation. It has

nothing to do with me. Too bad," he said, "that people have lost

their life savings. That's their problem, not mine." With respect to

BCRIC this government is like an irresponsible unmarried male denying responsibility

of the child he fathered. That's just one example.

Recent

revelations or accusations by BCTV were that there was a conflict of

interest existing between members of the cabinet who hold BCRIC shares

and an amendment which was made to the act which set up BCRIC. The

response was not one that fell into the realm of responsible action and

responsible comment, but the response was, "I'll sue if someone levels

that accusation against me." It wasn't a question of examining what

this government has done with respect to BCRIC. It wasn't a question of

examining the ethics or morality of the relationship of government to

BCRIC, but the response was: "I'll sue if you say further what it is

you were going to say."

Mr. Speaker, in my view a

politician who either sues somebody else or threatens to sue them over

ordinary political debate or discussion about his or her activities is

simply seeking the refuge of a scoundrel when they issue those kinds of

threats to stifle public debate. That's what this government did.

The

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) did it as well. When questions

were raised about whether or not there was conflict of interest, the

answer was: "I'll shut off public debate by threatening to sue

somebody." What is a political democracy all about if we're not

entitled to subject ourselves to public examination of our activities,

especially where there might be a conflict of interest, especially

where there might be doubt as to whether the particular person was

acting on his own private behalf, or whether he was serving the public

interest. The very act of threatening to sue, the act of denying any

responsibility, was breaking faith and breaking trust with the people

of this province.

In 1975 — we have to go back to that time

to see what occurred — in the election campaign, this party that now

becomes the government said, as one of its promises during the the 1975

election, that it would bring in conflict-of-interest rules that would

serve the public interest. Nothing was done about that promise of 1975,

like so many of the other promises of 1975 that were broken almost the

very moment that they were made. Not only that, but in the Speech from

the Throne by this government, under this Premier, in 1977 there

appears this phrase, set out all by itself — no qualifying remarks

preceding it and none after it. It was a paragraph, clear and

declaratory, and it reads: "A more adequate conflict-of- interest

statute for public officials will be placed before you for your

consideration and approval at this session." That was 1977.

Now

I don't know what the Lieutenant-Governor felt about that, about having

words put in his mouth that were subsequently not found to be true,

because there was no legislation introduced in that session. The matter

was buried and forgotten about. Even though the Premier was asked about

it during that session, and even though he said, "Yes, all legislative

items will be dealt with in this session," it was forgotten about.

Now

that's a violation of trust; that's the breaking of a pact with the

people of the province. Here we have a government that breaks that

pact, breaks that trust, violates that oath, and then turns around to

the people and says: "Trust me some more." One is entitled to be

skeptical, one is entitled to be cynical, about a government that so

often violates what is basically a moral question and an ethical

question.

[ Page 7353 ]

don't know, really, whether the new Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) is in a conflict-of-interest position or not,

but he is certainly in a conflict-of-statement position, heaping abuse

on people who live in such housing and then taking advantage of it

himself. Maybe that's why in his constituency he's known as "Two Story

Jack" — one story in the riding and another one here in Victoria. All

this has done is that the latest star to be added to the Bennett

cabinet shows up as having violated a trust relationship with the

people in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why he got into cabinet.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe that's why he got into the cabinet, says my friend: he established the criteria beforehand.

I'm

going to talk about another violation of trust of this government. When

the revelations were made that dirty tricks were the order of the day

in the cabinet's operation, and that phony letters were written, that

people's names on letters were falsified, that cheating took place, and

when it was revealed that the whole cabinet knew about it, when it was

revealed that the whole cabinet participated in it and sanctioned it,

and when it was discovered that the Provincial Secretary had made a

tape recording encouraging people to do that sort of thing and advising

them how to do it, what did the leader of government do? He said, "I'll

set up an ethics committee in the party," and he forgot about it. The

very moment he said it, he forgot about it. It was a statement of

convenience, as are all statements from this government — statements to

convenience and to protect themselves.

[3:15]

The

regretful part about it all, I suppose, is that they laugh about it and

giggle and chortle to themselves. Many of us felt genuinely sympathetic

and genuinely sorry about the plight that the former Minister of

Forests found himself in, in having had it disclosed that he, as the

minister, owned shares in a forest firm or something. We genuinely felt

sorry for him, because he's considered to be a nice guy.

When

the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, also

found to be in the same position, had his activities sanctioned by the

Premier, then we wondered what ethical standards were being followed in

the government. What ethical standards were being established? What

guidelines were being set out for people to follow? We came to the

conclusion that maybe, for reasons yet unknown but which will be

revealed fairly soon, the Premier wanted to get rid of the former

Minister of Forests because he was a hazard in forestry. I'm not sure,

when it comes to conflict of interest, where the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development fits in, but it is a question of

breaking of faith that's involved.

This is the government

that in 1980 established the five year range and resource fund for

forestry for silvicultural purposes. That action was applauded by

everyone in this chamber at the time. That action was applauded by

everyone who had anything to do with the forest industry, because they

saw an identification of the need to break out of the ordinary

budgetary annual restraints that demanded you start from zero each

year. They looked at it and said that silviculture had to have a future

for the funding as well; it can't be an annual: "Are we going to get

any money or aren't we?" That action of setting up the five-year range

and resource fund was applauded all across this province. You know very

well. Mr. Speaker, the attitude that was applauded in Prince George,

which desperately requires the forest industry for its survival and

economic development.

Then in 1982 the government, two

years into the five-year period of that range and resource fund,

reached in and grabbed the remaining money — some $86 million. They

wiped out the fund and destroyed the concept of long-range committed

funding to silviculture. They broke faith with the people of this

province. They violated another relationship. They said: "You shouldn't

trust us in forestry either." Where did some of that $86 million go?

Some of it went to buy television sets for inmates in Oakalla, figuring

that television entertainment for inmates in Oakalla is more important

than planting trees and forestry for the future. That's what they did.

Now

we have a throne speech in front of us right now that once again says:

"We're going to work out an arrangement for long-term funding for

silviculture." They've revived it again. They have come back once more,

after having broken trust with the people just four years ago on the

very self-same subject matter, and have now hauled the

Lieutenant-Governor in so that he can say his government is going to

look for a way for long-term funding. I for one don't believe it,

because this government has violated the people's trust before, and

they'll do it again every time they get a chance. You can't believe

them. They betrayed foresters. The government betrayed the forest

industry. It has certainly betrayed future generations. Our children

and our children's children were betrayed by this government on

forestry and silviculture with that action in 1982.

Four

years later on the eve of an election, they're going to revive it and

say: "Trust us again." I'm going to do my best to try to convince the

population in this province that no longer should they place any trust

in this government by way of the ballot in the hopes that it will get

tossed out once and for all, down the drain where it belongs. Let's

bring to the people what they need to have, which is a government that

can exhibit faith and honourable dealings and trust and build on that

trust. Betrayals should be no foundation for partisan political

activities.

There's an ancient Chinese proverb that says:

"If you fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me twice, shame on me."

It's a wise statement, and I hope the general public in this province,

when they get a ballot in their hand, will say: "No, you're not going

to fool me any longer."

I'll tell you something else they

did. They moved to establish a provision whereby forest licences could

be rolled over into tree-farm licences, a few years ago, and

established an arrangement whereby a volume-based licence could be

transferred and rolled over into a land-based type of licence.

memo was given to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing on February

2, 1984 by the then deputy minister, John Johnston, in which he points

out the dangers in that type of manoeuvre. He says in his memo:

"The province will inevitably lose the ability to assist the extent and quality of management of Crown lands."

The province will lose if you do this — if you relinquish control.

"The degree to which Crown land can be made available to

promote economic diversity is severely reduced by long-term alienation. The

management of both timber resources and other resource values within the licence

area will depend on the financial

[ Page 7354 ]

position of the company. Such management will decline in poor

financial times. Utilization standards will decrease and wastage will be greater

when timber marketability is low."

That's

exactly what is happening today. They're cutting trees in my part of

the world and leaving 40, 50 and 60 percent of the trees in the bush on

the ground — high-grading them. They're taking public property, which

is the tree, cutting it down and leaving it to rot. That won't be

available for future generations, for the next team of loggers that go

in there. It's down and it will be of no value whatever three or four

years from now.

John Johnston, the deputy minister, in a

very precisely worded, very careful and in-depth analysis of that

proposed rollover, came along with those suggestions and

recommendations, and basically said: "Don't do it, because if you do

the public interest will suffer." I just read some of the references

from that memo from Mr. Johnston to the then Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing. What did the government do? Did they pay heed to Mr.

Johnston's concern about the public interest? No damn way they did.

They fired him. They eased him out the door. They used the Peck

approach. It was either jump or get pushed. This government does not

want, from the public service, input into cabinet that seeks to pay any

attention to the public interest. Their only concern is their own

private interest and whom they deal with.

If there is an

area of deceit greater than any other it probably relates to the game

of restraint. One of the fundamental arguments that this government put

forward with respect to restraint was that it was going to bring down

the cost of government, and people felt: "Well, good, my taxes will be

lowered if it costs less to run government. I, the taxpayer, will

benefit." But do you know what happened in a two-year period, Mr.

Speaker? From the beginning of restraint to the current fiscal year,

the one we are in right now, the cost of government has gone up by $700

million — an 8 percent increase in the cost of government.

Here's

a government once more having broken the trust of the people. It said

to the people, "Re-elect us and we'll do one thing," and they turned

around and did something entirely different. We don't need the Kinsella

revelations to point out that this is a government to whom restraint

was a hoax played upon the people. They painted the Premier as a tough

guy. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's a vast difference between being tough

and being heartless, between being tough and being callous, between

being tough and being brutal. This is the government that has

brutalized virtually every group in this province for its own partisan

purposes. They've created enemies and tried to direct the attention at

the rest of the citizens against that group that they singled out.

Let

me run over them quickly. Teachers were singled out as being the

enemies of the state. Public servants were singled out. Social

assistance recipients, poor people on welfare, were singled out as

being the enemies of the state by this government. Co-op housing

tenants were singled out — with one exception — as the enemies of the

state. Doctors, municipal governments, selected school boards and

individual clergymen were singled out as being enemies of this

government and enemies of the people. People concerned about the

environment have been singled out as being enemies. Native Indians,

small loggers.... The list goes on and on of groups singled out by this

government for its own rotten, corrupt political activities.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I say that without equivocation: rotten, corrupt political

activities. With this government, power and falsehood are companions.

It should be truth that is the servant of power, but with the Bennett

government, Mr. Speaker, truth has become one of the permanently

unemployed, regrettably.

[3:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I'll advise the House that the motion has been passed to the Chair and

is in order. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education.

MR. HOWARD:

I think I have a point of order in that, as I understand it, when an

amendment is moved and seconded, if the seconder of the motion does not

immediately then speak, he loses his opportunity. I think the member

for Vancouver East should fit into that category. That seems to be the

tradition here — that by seconding he is presumed to have spoken and

that he should have the opportunity to speak now and thus not lose his

place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this happens

once a year. The first member for Vancouver Centre can indicate his

willingness to second this motion simply by nodding his head to the

Chair, and will not lose his place in debate at such time as he wishes

to take it. I can recognize the Minister of Education, hon. member, and

then recognize you later, if that is your wish. But this does not

prejudice your ability to speak at this point.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must respond. I was on my feet

first and I've placed my name to speak on behalf of the government's

side, and as you've indicated to the first member that he hasn't lost

his place in debate, I think I have the right to proceed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Further to the point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES:

I just wanted to be sure. If that's your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this

is not setting a precedent in that it's perfectly within the orders,

then I'll accept it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. And the

speaking list, as we all know, is done by other members of the

assembly. As I indicated earlier, your ability to speak in this debate

is not prejudiced at all, and you will be given every opportunity when

the time comes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I was

originally going to speak on the speech from the throne. However, now

that the member for Skeena has moved his amendment, then I'm quite

prepared to proceed to indicate to the House how erroneous his

amendment is in the type of debate he brings into this House.

Mr.

Speaker, I quote the last part of the member's motion: "But this House

regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to meet the expectations

and hopes of our people that they can place their trust in the current

government and that it fails to indicate that the government cares

about the economic and social plight of the ordinary British

Columbian." Mr. Speaker, then the member for Skeena goes on to accuse

the

[ Page 7355 ]

new

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) of misusing his

portfolio. I don't recall his exact words. He may have implied he was

dishonest. He may have implied many things that are unparliamentary, in

my opinion, Mr. Speaker, without stating first of all that this is a

new Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, in that position for a month.

I think that indicates the quality of debate the member for Skeena

brings to this House.

Then he attacks the former Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), not concerned about the economic or

social plight of British Columbians, but personally attacking ministers

of the Crown. And then it indicates his comments about dirty tricks,

letters etc. from many years ago, and then goes on to comment about the

former Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

Mr.

Speaker, that's one of the concerns I have about the level of debate in

the Legislature at this time. We have a problem in British Columbia,

though the member for Skeena would call it a game: "The game of

restraint." Yet, Mr. Speaker, this government over the past several

years, with the mandate of the people, has attempted to bring the cost

of government down within the ability of the taxpayers and the economy

to pay for government and government services.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, you know as well as I that 70 percent of our annual operating

budget goes to pay for health, education and human resources. The

member for Skeena is quick to point out to you that isn't it terrible

that in the three years of restraint we've embarked upon controlling

costs and that our total budget has gone up by some $700 million, or 8

percent. He says: "isn't it a shame and isn't it terrible that we have

increased our total budget by that much?"

But I think he

knows as well as I do, and as well as the rest of the members of this

Legislature, if he looks at the budget and identifies the Health

portfolio, the Education portfolio and the Human Resources portfolio,

that almost all of the $700 million that is in there goes for those

three areas of people services to the people of this province, because

this government recognizes the need for adequate health care, adequate

education and adequate assistance to those people who are less

fortunate than us. That's what that member fails to say.

indicates that our restraint program has failed. Mr. Speaker, if we

didn't have restraint in place, we wouldn't be able to maintain those

standards in Health, Education and Human Resources. That's our

commitment to the people: to control government costs. Even with all

the tough things we have done and all the things we have been accused

of, in the 1985-86 fiscal year I think our operating deficit for the

year will be approximately $900 million.

Mr. Speaker, we're

still borrowing to pay for groceries in this province, but we have

attempted to keep the deficit under control while having a

responsibility to maintain services to the people in the areas of

Health, Education and Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, I think if any

British Columbian took the opportunity to look behind the sensational

headline or the political rhetoric of the NDP and others in this

province, they'd quickly realize that in 1982-83 this government

identified the problem that the nation should have identified, which is

one of controlling costs of spending in government.

identified that program and went to the people of the province in 1983.

They said: "Yes, we're on side with you." And for the last three years

we've worked hard, and we've attempted to keep our costs under control.

Just in this year the federal government is finally addressing that

question that we addressed three years ago. They have a monumental

task, but it is one that I think this province can be proud of. Our

Premier and this government showed leadership as far back as 1983 in

getting the costs of government under control.

Mr. Speaker,

the member mentions in his resolution that we failed to indicate that

the government cared about the economic plight of the ordinary British

Columbian. Mr. Speaker, we brought in taxation relief a year ago for

business in this province. For what reason? Not to fill the pockets of

the private enterpriser or the entrepreneur but to give assistance to

the business community so they could maintain and create jobs for

British Columbians. You need those entrepreneurs, those businessmen;

you need that industry out there to have jobs for "ordinary British

Columbians," as the member put it.

Mr. Speaker, we identified another problem through the critical industries

commission. We identified the problem in the industry: they needed help to maintain

their competitive edge in the world marketplace. We've seen mining companies

go back to work in the Okanagan Valley. Brenda Mines put 400 people back to

work,400 ordinary British Columbians whose families are seeing a paycheque.

They wouldn't be working if it weren't for the efforts of this government

to bring management, labour and government together to work out a system whereby

those industries that were questionable or had shut down could maintain those

jobs for the ordinary British Columbian.

Mr. Speaker, we also moved to create new jobs. The Minister of Municipal Affairs

and his Partners in Enterprise program brought out a program and said to local

municipalities: "Look, we'll work with you. Between the provincial

government and local governments, if there is an opportunity to create jobs,

let's make it attractive for the businessman to come in and establish a

business in your community so that you can have people working in your community."

my community of Penticton a new plant, Western Match Inc., opened up

and employs employs 40 people. I have to tell you that in my community

40 more people working is a real boon, and we're looking for more

activity like that because of the cooperative effort between the

municipal government and the provincial government.

Then he

talks about the social plight of ordinary British Columbians — moving

off the economic side and getting into the people services of Health,

Education and Human Resources. His resolution fails because he knows

that of that $700 million, extra funds spent were primarily directed

into Health. Education and Human Resources. I think that should

indicate to him that his resolution is in error and that this

government is concerned about the social concerns of the people of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a few

minutes to indicate what this government has done and what it intends

to do with regards to education, the area that I have embarked upon. In

the throne speech we talk about the fact that there is a three year

program announced in the throne speech allocating $110 million in the

first year. That has been announced, and then it indicates that we will

be looking at a second and third year of the fund to be brought forward

by the Minister of Finance for consideration of the members of the

assembly.

[ Page 7356 ]

Mr.

Speaker, the key to that Excellence in Education fund is to provide our

young people with the academic and technical training and education to

allow them to take their place in the new economy that is developing in

our province. It is more important now than ever before, as we work our

way out of this economic downturn, that we have the ability to teach

our young people and prepare them for the twenty-first century. Maybe

some of the old standbys have to be looked at a second and third time.

Maybe we have to change direction because of the society in which we

live, the industrial community, the high technologies, the use of

computers. We've got to have an education system in this province that

is second to none, and not just with how much we spend per student,

because that's the myth. It's isn't whether or not we spend the

second-highest or the second-lowest amount in the country for education

of our students; it's what we do with the dollars we have.

Mr.

Speaker, we have a problem. There is no question, we have a problem.

There's a lack of coordination in our effort. There's a lack of

communication, certainly, and there's certainly a lack of

understanding. In regard to that lack of understanding, the biggest

issue in education today is funding; no question about that. The member

for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), I'm certain, would nod his head

that funding is the biggest concern in education today. Yet the

provincial budget, when I look at the statistics I have from 1979

dealing with total education in British Columbia, that's K to 12,

colleges and universities.... We spent $1 billion. In 1985 we spent

$1.7 billion. In those six years, that's a 70 percent increase. But the

debate is still that the education budget is not enough. That is

top-priority news media coverage, with delegations and anywhere I go.

It's always a concern.

Mr. Speaker, the question has to be asked: by what standard is it not enough

— by the standard of the optimum number of courses, activities, by the standard

of the number of facilities or by the standard of level of salaries? The answer

is no. Funding is not sufficient, because if it was sufficient, we wouldn't

have all the rhetoric that goes on around the province. But by the standard

of the economy's ability to pay or the taxpayer's ability to pay, the

answer is yes, it is adequate. It is money that has been directed, and well

directed, to ensure the best opportunity for our young people today.

Considering

the recent economic downturn, Mr. Speaker, we have put more dollars

into education and more into health. We still have a

multimillion-dollar operating deficit to ensure that we maintain those

people services I spoke about earlier.

[3:45]

Lack

of communication, Mr. Speaker. We have three camps in British Columbia:

one is called the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the other is called the

B.C. School Trustees' Association, and the third is called the B.C.

Ministry of Education — or the government, if you wish. Each has its

set priorities and, to a great extent, each position is inflexible

because.... I think communicating via the media could be called

political posturing for our various constituencies, whether it's Mr.

Clarke for the TF or Mr. Buckley or me. I have to say that the buck

stops here. We have to fund those school districts; we have to look at

the contribution to teachers' salaries, etc.

Unfortunately,

it all goes through the media and the political rhetoric from across

the other side — people who stand up and make speeches. Never mind

telling the whole story, just tell what you want them to hear; hammer

the government. Never mind that we're trying to work our way out of a

recession in this province. Just hammer the government, because they

have one goal in mind, and that's to get over here. But the people

aren't going to buy it, and they're always going to be over there.

We've

got to resolve, and I'm attempting to do that, the lack of

communication. It doesn't do any good for me and a group of agitated

people to meet in front of the TV cameras and get all the debate on

there. What we need to is sit down quietly, both with a common goal in

mind, which is to educate our young people in this province, and say:

how best can we accomplish that goal? "Mr. Minister, we think you

should do this," and they should understand what I'm trying to say to

the school boards and to the teachers.

There is a limited

pool of funds. You can't ask a logger or a construction worker or a

small business man who's just surviving, maintaining jobs for ten or 20

people, for more and more and more, or you break their backs,

particularly if you're asking for more money to pay salaries to

teachers. You can't do it, the same way that you cannot do it to

government employees at any level, whether it's municipal, federal or

provincial, because the money doesn't come from this room. It doesn't

come from you and me; it comes from the people. We're just the

guardians. We're just the people who take the money in and try to

redistribute it. And as I said earlier, 70 percent of those dollars

that we take in, which is generated by the economy and by taxes, goes

into those three major concerns of any government: health, education

and human resources.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) talks

about economics. I've heard some of his speeches in this House, and I

got to tell you, I'm not sure what he's saying. I know it's not

economics, anyway.

My intention, in attempting to try to

get over this confrontational approach to education, is to get down and

try to address the concerns of the people. That's the parents, the

teachers, the school trustees, the children and this government. I want

to sit down and try to address it, and I've been doing that over the

past four weeks. I've spoken to teachers, the BCTF, the school

trustees. I've had a tremendous number of briefing sessions with my

staff, most of which come from the teaching profession, from the field

of education in the schools; they have moved onto the provincial scene

in order to give their expertise to the government to create the best

courses possible for our young people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

If the member for Esquimalt is going to tell us that what you do is

hire more government employees to generate more paycheques so that you

won't have any problems raising taxes, he has a problem. You've got to

have production. If that was the simplest approach, then we'd hire

everybody for government and solve our problem. That's the NDP fiscal

strategy — government hires everybody, government takes over

everything, and the problem is solved.

Let me tell you what I'd like to do. First of all, I want to set up a School Act committee made up of educators, people

[ Page 7357 ]

from

the education system, administrators, business people and others — and

those others would include some parental input as well. I want them to

take the "Let's Talk About Schools" material, and all the other

material that we've gathered over the years, and come up with a paper

for me which will result in a new School Act for this province. I think

we've got to address that question, and I hope to get on with that; but

I've got to get out of the political rhetoric that each organization

seems to be involved in and get down to sitting at a table to solve

that problem.

The other areas are a committee to deal with

computers in education, to recommend to the high schools the type of

computer hardware and software. The hardware is only the machine and

I'm more interested in what type of programs we are going to give our

young people. If we can get the best computer expertise, then we can

train our young people for dealing with the business world of the

twenty-first century.

Then I want to get involved in a

committee on teacher training and upgrading, and find out how best we

can help our professional teachers cope with the ever-changing world of

education, which is driven by the demands of the workplace, the

technology in the workplace, the professions, the new professions that

have come onstream, the ones that our teachers have to train our young

people for, so that if they go to university, to post-secondary

education, they're aimed in the direction that's best for the student.

Also the arts, because the arts are a very important part of our

community in British Columbia.

Last but not least — this is

a very delicate subject, but one that should be expressed — we have to

address the question of child abuse. It's one that is of concern to all

of us, and I want to make sure I have input from teachers, trustees and

the ministry to ensure that we can guarantee parents that their

children are safe in our schools. The comment has been made: "What

about the parents?" Most certainly the parents have to be involved in

that discussion. If we can develop the proper system and policies, we

can identify the offenders and they'll be dealt with swiftly. But it is

also my duty to ensure that innocent teachers aren't falsely

identified, or are not victims of a witch-hunt just because somebody

has concern.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member opposite says: "What about the courts?" Yes, Madam Member, the courts would be used, but I think we....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Oh, the CORE program. I thought you were talking about the CARE program

because I was dealing with child abuse; there is a program called CARE

in some of the schools now.

Mr. Speaker, those are the four priorities as I see them: a new School Act,

computers in education, teacher training and upgrading, and child abuse. If

we can identify where we want to go and get away from the political rhetoric

that surrounds education today, then we'll achieve the goal we all want

— the government, the Ministry of Education, the parents, the children, who

seem to be forgotten in all of this rhetoric....

MR. REID: It sure seems like it.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Doesn't it. We should be concerned about education for our children,

not about teachers' wages. We should be concerned about the parents of

those children, not whether we can get new schools, et cetera, or what

courses. We should be concerned about the parents, because when they

send those children to school they feel they have the opportunity to

learn, and not be subject to any possible abuse.

If I can

achieve those goals I'll certainly be very proud and pleased, but I

need cooperation. I don't need the type of debate that comes across the

House from time to time; I don't need rhetoric from the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) who just wings it, so to speak. He doesn't even

read his own resolution before he gets up and talks. If he thought of

some of the things that were done in the past months and years, he'd

find that he should withdraw his resolution.

Mr. Speaker,

to deal finally with the one area of funding, because I think it's

important that we understand the sharing of all this, there's a lot of

comment about the industrial or commercial tax base that's been taken

away from the local school board. That is part of the economy of

British Columbia, and that all goes into the revenues of the province

in order for the province to share that equally across the province.

Most teachers of school boards will tell you very quickly that there

are some school districts that don't have that industrial tax base that

others did. As a result it was a much heavier load on the people who

didn't have the industrial tax base within their school district. and

they suffered more greatly. So when you pool it all together and bring

it in and then share it equitably under the fiscal framework across the

framework, that's fairer.

What does it do? It identifies

with the kids — the young people we're trying to educate. Never mind

about how much money I've got in this pot because I've got a big

sawmill or a big pulp mill or something else and I can do all those

fancy fringe things that you want to do in education. No, sir. It's a

core curriculum we're concerned about. It's education for the kids. So

let's pool that money and then redistribute it. This is how it goes,

Mr. Speaker.

You'd be interested to know that the

residential tax....

The Premier alluded to it today so I got the

chart, and I want to pass this on to the House: local residential tax

net after homeowner grant, 9.4 percent of the total cost of education

in the province; homeowner grant contributes 15.4 percent; general

revenue grants — that's from the province — 38.4 percent. The

employers' portion of teachers' pensions, which we have to contribute

to, is 5.1 percent, and non-residential tax is 31.6 percent, which is

the industrial-commercial tax base that goes into the pool. So if you

look at that, considering that the homeowner grant comes from the

economy of British Columbia, the residential taxpayer net on his taxes

he pays on his property in this last year was 9.4 percent. I'm not

saying it should be increased, Mr. Speaker; I'm just saying that people

often think that this government doesn't contribute enough to

education, and I'm just pointing out to you that there is a 90 percent

contribution that is made locally and the net balance to the local

taxpayer on average is 9.4 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal

framework that I've come to enjoy administering — the fiscal framework

in education — is a very comprehensive approach to fairness in

education. It basically identifies a formula to look at class

operations and administration across the province. Then it adjusts for

those remote or rural school districts — transportation costs. It

[ Page 7358 ]

gives us a basic fiscal framework that treats all school districts equally.

The

concept of the local school board having the ability to tax is a good

concept, because if the local school board, in its wisdom, has the

ability to tax, it can tax for services rendered which they decide upon

locally that they want to give to their local students. They have the

ability to raise that tax locally. But, Mr. Speaker, with that ability

comes accountability. What it means is that the school board has the

right to go to the property-owners for taxes and provide things over

and above what is provided in the fiscal framework. That's a local

decision, but it's also for them to explain to their taxpayers that

they want to have this additional money for these additional programs

they may put in.

I think that's great. I think every school

board in this province, maybe with the exception of one, will identify

with that and say: "Now we have a responsibility here. First of all,

here is the fiscal framework. Secondly, if we want to enhance that,

then we're going to have to make a case to our local taxpayers." In

most cases, if their case is good the local taxpayer will say: "Good

show, school board. I really appreciate what you're doing because

you're concerned — giving extra courses, identifying with this

particular area for my children." For example, in the Okanagan Valley

maybe an agricultural course on the tree-fruit industry, because that's

one of the major industries in our valley and maybe that's a specific

course that could be identified with North Okanagan, with South

Okanagan, with Boundary-Similkameen, because it has that opportunity to

respond to a local need. I think that's a great approach.

[4:00]

just point out, Mr. Speaker, that have a lot of faith in the elected

school trustees in this province, who, when given this authority, will

identify the true needs for their specific area, recognizing the limit

of the ability of the provincial tax base and the provincial economy to

pay, and if they wish to go over that they have the ability to do it,

and as I said earlier, they have the accountability. I'm sure they'll

come forward and they'll be as responsible at the local level as we are

at the provincial level dealing with education funding in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, let me sum up. I would like to deal at another time with the

Expo legacy committee. I think some comments were made earlier in the

throne speech debate with regard to what happens after Expo. I'd love

to be able to spend some time to talk about that. But let's deal with

the resolution which, I think, first of all, was poorly presented by

the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Secondly, it indicated that the

opposition did not feel that the government cared about the economic

and social plight of the ordinary British Columbian. In my remarks I

have attempted to identify what we've done with regard to the economy,

and what our plans are in regard to education, which is my

responsibility as Minister of Education. If, in addressing the

resolution that's before us or in the budget speech debate, the

opposition identified the policies and the programs that they would put

into place if they were government, we could get on with far better

legislative activity in this province. Mr. Speaker, I'm voting against

this resolution that has been presented by the member for Skeena.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to second the motion by the member for Skeena,

amending the throne speech: that His Honour failed in his speech to

meet the expectations and hopes of our people, that they cannot place

their trust in the current government, and that it fails to indicate

that the government cares about the economic and social plight of

ordinary British Columbians.

I would just comment on the

question of care. I made a comment recently about the Premier and

Social Credit's lack of commitment to investment in social housing. The

Premier retorted that he takes exception to my suggesting that he does

not care. I'm not going to argue over something as subjective as

whether you care or not; I think action is what we're talking about —

the actions of the government.

On December 7 I was asked by

the Leader of the Opposition, as a result of a letter from 16

organizations — actually, there were more than that, but they call

themselves ELP, End Legislated Poverty — who out of frustration made a

challenge to the government and the opposition to provide a

representative to come and live on social assistance rates for a single

person as provided through the Ministry of Human Resources.... The

Leader of the Opposition agreed to provide a person, myself, and on

January 2 we held a press conference to announce the conditions under

which this would take place. The conditions, of course, were highly

publicized; that is, everyone was made fully aware that the government

was being accused of being insensitive, unavailable and out of touch

with the basic, ordinary, everyday needs of British Columbians.

The

16 organizations made it clear that....

By the way, I should point

out that some of these organizations, Mr. Speaker, are as follows: food

banks, the conference of the United Church, the Teachers' Federation,

the Committee for Social Responsibility, the Association of Social

Workers, CIP Fightback, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association,

unemployed action centres in Vancouver and New Westminster, Solidarity

associations, tenants' rights organizations in Vancouver-Little

Mountain, the Vancouver and District Public Housing Tenants'

Association, Status of Women, the Single Mothers' Action Committee,

Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of British Columbia, the Downtown

Eastside Women's Centre, etc. Actually, there were many more

organizations. These organizations were frustrated because time and

again they made appeals to the government to address the concerns that

they had. They were talking specifically about income assistance, and

that really is the point I wish to discuss — the income assistance

program of British Columbia.

I was asked to live on $350,

something that I think as MLAs we can all appreciate is considerably

less than what we normally earn and live on.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES:

I must say.... The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

is asking who.... I don't know if he is intending to try to disrupt

my speech, but it was the ELP — End Legislated Poverty, a coalition of

some 16 community organizations — that challenged the Leader of the

Opposition and the Premier of the province to provide an MLA or a

cabinet minister, whatever the case may be. Of course we got no one

from the government side.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

[ Page 7359 ]

MR. BARNES:

Are you still ready to go down, Mr. Minister? You've been down there

once and you looked at the wrong place. You were trying to get some

information. You were down there. Now I didn't want.... See, I'm

trying to relate a matter that I consider to be of very serious

significance, and I don't wish to badger the government, but merely to

report what I experienced in such as way as to point out to the

government that it's.... They may care. When a person says they

care, that's really something that.... Who can argue with a person

if they say they care? But their actions are what we're talking about.

the sixth of January I began to experience the very first problem that

one faces who is on social assistance when they are really broke and

have no money and no means, and that's trying to find a place to stay.

So I spent a day or so — actually I spent all day — looking at rooming

houses. I found, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have the

option of living anywhere in the city of Vancouver on the mere amount

of $200 per month, because welfare rates do not allow you to have that

much choice. You have to make a decision that if you're going to be on

welfare rates you either live in or around the downtown east side or

you share your accommodation with someone outside the downtown east

side, which means that you have less and less privacy and less and less

of the freedom that you might have been accustomed to when you were

working full time, when you had your own independence and when you were

able to feel some sense of self-determination. These kinds of things go

by the boards when you are on social assistance. At least this was the

experience that I had, and I've talked to hundreds of people who have

told me that it is actually impossible to live on those rates.

finally found a place, after deciding that I was not going to find a

place where I could have all of the amenities I like, such as a private

toilet, private bath, my own cooking facilities and perhaps a little

lounge room, or all of those normal things that people expect in their

home, but I was going to have to settle for a room in the range of 10

by 10 — maybe 100 or 150 square feet. A 200-square-foot space is quite

large for people who are living in those little rooming places

downtown. I was going to have to settle for a sink on the wall — a

little wash-basin type of a sink. That was my plumbing. You get used to

that when you're in the downtown east side. I was going to have to

settle for co-tenants, shall we say. In other words, little pests or

insects — some people call them cockroaches — or mice or whatever may

be around; they also share the facilities with you. And usually you're

having to change your lifestyle. I found that even though I wanted to

use the toilet, I had to take my own toilet paper or I had to take my

soap and bring it back and forth, because it would disappear. These are

the kinds of shocks that I experienced, and I realized that there were

people being plunged into that type of life who had themselves been

independent most of their lives, but who because of the lack of

opportunities within the income assistance program had very little

choice.

Now on $350 per month I had to spend $200 of that

amount for shelter. If I hadn't spent the $200 for shelter, the

Minister of Human Resources would not give me the difference. In other

words, were I able to negotiate a cheaper rent — find cheaper

accommodation available, say, for $100 or $150 — I could not count on

that extra $50 or extra $100 from the ministry. They paid my shelter

allowance of $200. They did not give me the difference for good

business ability or negotiating ability — for my ability to wheel and

deal, so to speak, as any free enterpriser would understand, to try to

make the most of my dollars. There is no incentive for me to make a

deal with the landlord under the B.C. government system.

Landlords

know that, by the way, Mr. Speaker. Landlords know the rules very well.

They know that a person on social assistance gets X amount of dollars

for shelter and X amount of dollars for a living allowance. But those

are two distinct categories and are not together, and that is a serious

problem in the system. These are the kinds of things that I say the

government could do something about. Perhaps the government cannot

create money if it doesn't have it, although we all know that it

manages to create the odd dollar for things like ALRT or Expo or

northeast coal or Coquihalla Highway or all kinds of other things.

Nonetheless,

the government has no money, resources are down, times are tough,

restraint has been imposed to try to save taxpayers' money, although

the deficit has gone up some $16 billion in the last ten years. We

still have a toughtime province, and therefore those people on social

assistance who are suffering cannot be helped right away. But all I'm

saying to you is, do a good job with the system you have, Mr. Speaker.

People who are receiving shelter allowances should be allowed that

amount of money. That's what you've budgeted for. You've budgeted $200;

give them the $200. And if they can save $50, let them save $50. That's

only fair. Put pressure on those landlords who know that those people

are going to spend that money. They know that the government will take

it away from them if they don't get it. If they can't negotiate, how

can we encourage people to improve themselves?

[4:15]

much for the shelter allowance. It can be improved. You could lump that

together with the living allowance. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

The money is there. This is not money you have to find. You've budgeted

for it — give it to them. Why rip them off further? Why take more from

them than you've even budgeted for? This is the point. We're talking

about the dollars you say you have right now. Not the dollars you're

trying to get — the dollars you have.

If you're not

satisfied with what I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, take a look at a

report that came out just this month — March 1986 — put out by the

Social Planning and Review Council of British Columbia. They make one

of those recommendations. In fact, all of these recommendations in

SPARC should be followed. They're talking about some new money, but

most of the things they're talking about are just regulatory, just

simple common sense.

Mr. Speaker, the living allowance is just as bad. I was a rather inexperienced

new recipient on simulated welfare, and I must say that there were a lot of

things that I tried to do that I probably would not do again. Most people who

wrote me.... There were literally dozens and dozens of letters coming in

and telling me: "Good idea that you're doing it as a politician. We

know you must have a gimmick or a scam or something, because politicians don't

do these kinds of things." After living through that and realizing that

I didn't dare play games with people's lives in this way.... No

politician would dare do what I did, not unless he was serious; and I don't

think that any politician would go through that and come out of it without trying

to do something about it. That's the other thing. It affects you. This is

why I'm saying to you what I'm saying. I'm not really trying

[ Page 7360 ]

condemn you for not caring, although that's in the amendment and there

is good reason for people to believe that the government doesn't care.

Be that as it may, we're talking about practical solutions to the

problem.

This living allowance of $150, which is the amount

I had left after paying for my $200 room, is woefully inadequate. It is

not possible for this particular person, at the time 228 pounds, at the

time 56 years of age, at the time 6 foot 6, to survive in good health

by living on a nutritious diet on that amount of money, and expect to

be able to function, to be available for employment, shall we say — to

be able to groom myself, to keep myself fit, to be able to do any of

the normal things that a person has to do to maintain his sanity, sense

of dignity and self-respect. It's simply not possible. I like to jog,

for instance. I cannot. I tried it four times in the 54 days that I was

out. I had to give it up because it takes too much energy.

discourages a person from being able to involve himself in recreation

and cultural activities and a treat every now and then. No wonder

people go to drink. No wonder they have a three-day millionaire down

there. Those people, when they do get their hands on a few dollars —

frustration, hopelessness, disincentive, lack of encouragement,

dehumanization, frustrated staff who haven't the resources to do the

job that they are supposed to do or are trying to do under their

ethical responsibilities as professional people and para-professionals.

They can't do their job, their hands are tied, they are suffering from

restraint. On and on it goes, but who suffers? The recipient. The

person that we should be encouraging we're discouraging. So $150 is

definitely not enough to live on — far from it.

I was told

that I had to purchase a fare card for $40, which is the cost of a

transit card in the city of Vancouver, in the greater Vancouver area. I

did that: I purchased a fare card, and I was immediately told by most

people on social welfare that that's a luxury. "You can't afford fare

cards," they say. "You can barely make it on that just to eat. You

cannot afford it." But I said: "Well, certainly you've got to have a

fare card or some form of transportation if you are required by the

regulations of the MHR to be looking for work if you are able." If you

are employable you are supposed to be looking for work. You are

supposed to be mobile. Not to mention clothing, and for some people

that requires a lot more amenities. Some people get their hair cut.

Some people like to brush their teeth and do all kinds of things — buy

toothpaste.

But these are all costs that have to come out

of that $150. The fare card is $40; that leaves me $110. I was told by

the nutritionist that for a person with the physical description I just

gave you about myself, I would need at least $25 a week at a minimum,

which wouldn't even bring me up to the amount of calories I need for a

day in order to survive, which is close to 4,000. I would get about

half that. Those are facts. We're talking about facts. The budget that

those people have to live on is not only demeaning, it's irresponsible.

Where

are your guidelines? Why do I say it's irresponsible? Take a look at

Statistics Canada's recommendations for what is a very minimum standard

that people should live on. It's all here in the document. I'm not

going to read it, but I would recommend to the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and to all of the other ministers that

they read this document. It is unbiased; it is highly professional and

objective, dealing only with the facts, after laborious effort to try

to find out by measuring right across this country what it really does

cost, even by region. What does it really cost for a person to live,

not in the grand style of members of the Legislature, but simply to be

able to exist and have some semblance of dignity remaining? That's what

we're talking about. I do not believe that this government doesn't

care. Perhaps this government doesn't understand, and this is the

reason for the challenge.

The impression I got from those

organizations was: "Look, if you will go and live on that amount of

money, you will see what we mean." So that's what I did. I didn't come

back to accuse the government of not caring. I came back to report to

the government that the system does not work; it simply doesn't work.

can argue and play politics. I just heard the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) say that we've got to cut out politics in our

education system, that we've got to begin to talk in terms of benefit

to the people, that we've got to talk in terms of ways of maximizing

our resources. Well, let's take a look at this income system. Income

assistance in the province of British Columbia is woefully inadequate.

It doesn't even begin to meet basic, essential needs. It's about 50

percent of what it should be in most categories to reach the national

average, or the poverty line recommended by StatsCanada, based on

research, based on all kinds of information and long periods of time.

Time after time it has shown that people in British Columbia do not

receive adequate allowances. I know there are analogies in other

jurisdictions where you say they don't even have income assistance. We

can talk about the Third World. We can talk about down in the United

States. We can talk about other jurisdictions even in Canada, but I'm

talking about British Columbia, about people who have a right to live

in dignity. We should set an example. We should not be that concerned

about what's happening somewhere else when it comes to our people.

What

are the solutions? What would happen if you raised the rates? Some

people say that if you raise the rates all you do is get a pass-through

to the landlord and people will just squander that money. Well, I'm

here to say that talking to people, I find most of them are doing

things I'm sure this government would not condone, for a good reason:

because this government believes everyone should have the right to live

in dignity, live by ethical standards, be able to maintain the kind of

morality that is necessary in order to bring up families in this

society. They should not be expected to engage in any activity that is

in any way a contravention of the regulations of any statutes in this

province.

I've challenged people to show me how it can

work. I know there are a few people who believe it is possible to live

on that $350 if you are a single person. There may be a spartan type of

person in this world who can do almost anything. I certainly have had

to do some things that didn't feel very good, but I did them anyway. I

do not recommend that anyone live by the rules, by the regulations as

set down by MHR, on the rates as they are today. I don't recommend that

they try to do it because it's not healthy; it's not safe; it's

depressing. It is virtually impossible, certainly, to sustain yourself

for very long.

So what do they do? After 23 days, I was

broke. I had only purchased a $40 fare card; I had $110 left. I bought

a few cooking items, a few miscellaneous items for about $10 or $15,

and I was broke after 23 days. People say: "How are you going to get

through?" Well, you can do several things. You can borrow money from

your friends. I doubt if you would be able to get it from the bank or

any lending institution, because you don't qualify. You don't have any

full-time

[ Page 7361 ]

employment;

your assets are down. In other words, you are totally depleted, so

you're not going to qualify for very much in the way of loans.

You

can engage in full-time employment, kiss the welfare system good-bye

and go on about your way. We all know that's not possible. We have

about half a million people, or very close to it, who are either on

welfare or unemployment insurance, or who are working for the minimum

wage of $3.65, which is less than the poverty level. We're talking

about the unavailability of jobs, so that option is out.

What

other options are there? What do you do if you're on welfare and you

run out of money? You're trying to live frugally. You're watching every

dime and you just can't make it. What do you do? Do you go to the food

bank? Well, you never know what you might get at the food bank, and

that's only once a week; that's hardly adequate. The food banks are

starving. This government has yet to contribute a dime to the food

banks, although they surely recommend that their clients go to them.

They do that, but they make no contribution. What do you do when you're

broke, you're on the government social assistance program and you have

no other means? I'll tell you what you do, despite what the former

Minister of Human Resources said after January 2. After that press

conference announcing that an MLA would be going on welfare, she said:

"We're going to attack. We're going to find those people who are

cheating, who are defrauding, who are taking things that they don't

have a right to, in order to have more money to help those in need." I

suggest to you that they are all in need. There are no people on

welfare who have enough money.

The point I am trying to

make, with all respect to this House and to everyone in this province —

because I believe we are all people of good will — is that in my heart

I do not believe we are deliberately setting out to crush people, but

we are inadvertently doing just that because people cannot live on that

amount of money. That suggests to me that their options are going to be

illegal. Now how many people think of themselves as criminal because

they're on welfare and take $50 from mom and dad, keep it in their

pocket and don't report it to their income assistance worker? That's

not cheating, is it? Is it cheating, when you're hungry and do not have

enough meals to make it, to take an extra fifty dollar bill from your

neighbour or you do a little baby-sitting on the side and don't tell

anybody? Is that cheating? Does that make you a criminal? Are we going

to say that we are going to prosecute people for doing that, because

that's what they're doing?

[4:30]

I suggest to you that all those people are doing something like that.

They're doing something. They've got to be doing something because we

know for a fact that those rates are far from adequate, a long way from

adequate, and that's the problem. We're not going to have an

investigation for fraud. You'd have to put everybody on the welfare

roles in jail. If a person goes and gets a bag of food from the food

bank, and they don't report that to their income assistance worker, is

that not fraud? Do they not require that you report all benefits?

How

many people have you heard report their bag of food to the income

assistance worker? Let's get serious. We know people are doing it.

We're turning a blind eye, but we are encouraging people to be

dishonest out of desperation, out of need. That's where the fault is,

and we can do something about it right here. We don't need any more

money to do something about that kind of a problem.

Criminals.

The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. calls it survival fraud, but

it's really not fraud. But even going the best lick and giving the

government the benefit of the doubt, if a person has to commit fraud to

survive, then shouldn't we try to help them get out of that situation?

Doesn't that indicate that something is wrong?

Mr. Speaker,

again I commend to you this recent study "ReGAINing Dignity." It is an

examination of basic living in the lower mainland and the adequacy of

income assistance and GAIN rates. It was done in December 1985 and

presented in March 1986 by Social Planning and Review Council of

British Columbia. I commend it to the government. The very first things

in this report are objectively condemning. They are not passing

judgment; they are merely stating fact. They say:

"It

is evident from the research findings that current income assistance

rates in British Columbia are seriously inadequate. While the data

pertains particularly to the lower mainland, comparable, if not higher,

living costs in other parts of British Columbia make them equally

applicable provincewide. The data indicates that the first condition of

a social security scheme is not being met: sustaining recipients'

physical well-being and survival through the provision of adequate

food, clothing and shelter."

That condition is not being met. It goes on to state:

"The

second condition of a social security scheme is not being met: the

creation of positive incentives and options that enable recipients to

make genuine choices with respect to employment, education and

training." That condition isn't being met.

It is a fallacy

as well and a myth to suggest that those people on social assistance

are beat, degenerates, incompetents, losers, down-and-outers and all

kinds of other unsavoury comments that come to the people who find

themselves unfortunately dependent on the social assistance rates in

this province. No, they are people like you and I. They are people who

have gone through our education system at all levels. Some have only

had elementary, some have had secondary and some have had university

and post-graduate. There are actually PhDs on social assistance in the

food bank lineups. There are former tradespeople, people who have been

phased out at 39, 40, 45 years of age.

You see, Mr.

Speaker, we're talking about ordinary British Columbians; we're not

talking about some strange monster that descended upon us from outer

space. There's no such thing. I found that those people in the downtown

east side, the so-called slum....

I say "so-called" because I found

that these people are sensitive, caring and aspiring despite the fact

that they are beat from so many failures in terms of getting anywhere

in this society. The fact that people have turned their backs on them

has still not totally discouraged them. Most of them say to me: "I

would like to have a job. I would like to be constructively engaged in

society. I want to do something. I want to be relevant, and if I were

given the opportunity, I would make the extra effort to do something."

Why don't we talk positively about programs to involve people in

solving things for themselves?

How can any person who

considers himself an economist on that side of the House or has even

the slightest enlightenment about the use of dollars, Mr. Speaker, not

realize that when you give money or extend money to those people who

are already desperately trying to find dollars to survive, they

[ Page 7362 ]

are

going to go out and buy groceries, they're going to pay rent, they're

going to buy clothes, they're going to pay bus fare, and on top of that

they will even be paying taxes. The money comes back.

Why

are we doing this? It's got nothing to do with the costs. Affordability

hasn't got a thing to do with it. Besides, we have what is called the

Canada Assistance Plan, which cost-shares 50 percent of everything that

we spend to try to help these people, and yet we have not raised the

rates in four years in this province. It's scandalous, absolutely

scandalous! We could be giving people help. We don't do it. I feel that

it is ideological. There's got to be something else. There's got to be

some other reason.

It's not that you don't care; it's just

that you don't consider it a priority. For some reason you have an

adverse idea about the benefits of social assistance and helping people

to live in dignity. You don't believe that that will be a productive

return. You don't believe that that will be a reward to the people of

the province of British Columbia. Well, it would be a reward.

would also be a redeeming grace for the political profession, for those

of us who are trying to become more sensitized to the realities on the

streets, in the community, eyeball to eyeball and, to use a very common

term in the technological field, with a hands-on approach — if not

hands-on, arm's-length, with fingers extended. Begin to try to reach

and understand what's going on with people. We have an obligation to do

that — not just to do a good job, but for our own sanity, because I

believe there's a certain amount of guilt and frustration that builds

up in the profession of politics after a while. We get cynical. We give

up. We are afraid of the people we are trying to help. We talk about

going down and surveying a situation at a distance — maybe a quick

hit-and-miss type of thing, especially at election time. But I tell

you, the people of British Columbia, the people of Canada — people all

over the world — are tired of that. They want us to begin to have a bit

of a heart, to become more concerned, take a chance. Be bold. We talk

about being bold. Be bold and tell people that they do matter, that

we're going to get them involved in their own culture, their own

society, in a constructive way.

No one wants welfare. I

haven't found a single person who wants welfare, although I found quite

a few who became frightened after being on welfare for a while, and

began to feel: "What can I do? I'm handicapped. I'm not properly

trained. I feel inadequate. I've lost my confidence because it's been

so long that I don't know if I could compete successfully." What you

get when you have a person like that is someone who is preoccupied with

failing. This kind of negative pattern builds into their behaviour to

the extent that they are debilitated. It takes a great deal to

remobilize those people, to get them turned on again, to give them the

confidence. You've got to be prepared to let them try and try again

until they know that we really care. You can't dismiss them because

they fail a few times. I think that's what we need in this province.

That's what we need in the world, quite frankly.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'll

deal more with the practical aspects, with the concrete things that can

happen. Age discrimination. Can you imagine that? There is actually a

regulation within the Ministry of Human Resources that states that if

you are 25 years of age you do not require as much sustenance as

someone 26. Do you realize that, Mr. Speaker? Obviously this is drawn

up for administrative reasons, or for some other kind of totally

unrealistic reason. But I'm sure there is an explanation. According to

the authors of this document, they are unable to find any standards the

government uses to design this kind of thing. Yet that is in fact a

regulation, and that is what is going on in this province right now.

You do not get the same benefits as a person who is 26 if you are under

that age. You are supposed to be able to find some source from

somewhere that they don't specify.

Here's another

interesting requirement. You do not receive your full benefit — in

other words, you have to live on $350 per month — until you have been

on eight months. You are supposed to have fewer sustenance ne