1985 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6005 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

School board budgets. Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6005

Mr. Skelly

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 42: minister's office –– 6006

Ms. Brown

Mr. Davis

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Williams

On vote 43: ministry programs –– 6013

Ms. Brown

On vote 82: transit services –– 6013

Mr. Williams

British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 17). Second reading

Mr. Williams –– 6013

Mr. Davis –– 6014

Mrs. Dailly –– 6015

Mr. Cocke –– 6016

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like to introduce to the House Mr. and

Mrs. Tim Gottfried, who work for the local radio station in Powell

River. They are with us in the galleries today, and I ask the House to

join me in welcoming them.

MR. HANSON: I would like the House to join me in welcoming

the people from the Executive Secretarial College, who are in the

galleries today. I would like to make them feel welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the

following motion:

be it resolved that this Assembly commends 71 boards

of school trustees in the province of British Columbia for achieving

budgetary levels in compliance with the Education (Interim) Finance Act

and the School Act of the province of British Columbia, and urges that

the Burnaby, Coquitlam and Cowichan boards of school trustees similarly

act and similarly comply with the laws of the province of British

Columbia.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I said no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And I said no, hon. members. The" no" was heard clearly by the Chair.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I seek the floor to make a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I placed a notice of the motion on the order paper two days ago....

MR. HANSON: For Friday.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Tuesday for Thursday — two days' notice according to the rules. It seems to me that it's a considerable opportunity....

MS. BROWN: Is this a ministerial statement, or what?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment, hon. minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: The minister....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I beg your pardon? I would ask the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) to withdraw that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

The Chair had recognized the Minister of Education on a ministerial

statement. The second member for Vancouver Centre then rose on a point

of order, and I have recognized him. The Chair heard no other

remarks....

MR. LAUK: All right, we'll leave it there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. The Minister of Education

gained the floor on a ministerial statement. The House has just

disposed of leave for that specious resolution and now he's....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: If he has anything to say under a point of order

about the procedure of this House or reflecting on whether leave was

granted or not, he must do so under some standing order that is

permissible by the Chair. If he has a ministerial statement, then let

him make it. But he's not entitled to reflect upon the decision of this

House not to accept a motion, specious as it is, outside of the normal

rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, some of the points raised by the

hon. member definitely can apply, and I would ask that the minister

proceed with the ministerial statement that he wishes to deliver.

SCHOOL BOARD BUDGETS

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give a report as to

what has occurred in the last little while involving the official

trusteeship of the school district in the city of Vancouver. I wish to

advise the House that there has been excellent cooperation between the

officials, superintendent and secretary-treasurer, and the official

trustee, and I think that they are making considerable progress. As a

matter of fact, I think that all members in the House will be delighted

with what they have been able to accomplish.

I am particularly interested in advising the House that there has

been communication with the Burnaby School District and the Coquitlam

School Board, and I have made it very clear that I am quite prepared to

review and listen to any reconsideration of their bylaws and extend the

provisions for filing that bylaw under the Education (Interim) Finance

Act. Under one particular section, the government can pass a regulation

which will allow the board to submit a compliance bylaw and strike the

mill rate, provided the appropriate regulation is passed. In the case

of Courtenay that is exactly what will occur.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly evident, and the

information which is being passed on to me was, that the budget

submitted by the city of Vancouver was absolutely nothing short of a

political budget. It had absolutely nothing to do with providing

educational services to the community of Vancouver. It created

unnecessary anxiety among parents and children. When I examine what has

occurred with all other school districts in the province of British

Columbia, the 71 who have complied.... By the admission of even those

trustees or former trustees on the Vancouver School Board, they did not

have anywhere near the difficulties in reaching a compliance budget

that all of the other school districts in the province had.

[ Page 6006 ]

I made public, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, am I to

understand that the minister is withdrawing the motion? How is this

ministerial statement in order when a motion is on the order paper?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with due respect, a ministerial

statement is the responsibility of the minister. You certainly do not

expect the Chair to limit or edit the remarks of a minister of the

Crown, no more than you would a reply to a statement.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that we as

a government must take action with respect to placing an official

trustee in the city of Vancouver involves the entire municipal system.

It involves the entire system of tax collection. The Municipal Act

insists that the mill rates must be provided by a certain date in order

that they can prepare their tax notices. I neglected to request leave

when I last spoke in the House with respect to a letter which I

received from the city of Vancouver. At the concluding of my remarks

today I would like to ask leave to table that letter in the House.

I would say again that the rule of law is extraordinarily important.

The fundamental basis of democracy is respect for that rule of law.

Whether some may not feel as comfortable with that as others.... When

we were opposition and the members across the way passed laws many of

us did not like, we obeyed those laws. That's all we expect of others.

If 71 of 75 districts can comply with the law, there is no reason why

the others cannot, and I certainly encourage them to do so.

I find it almost incredible that the president of the BCTF would

counsel defiance of the law, and that people in the classroom

responsible for children are making those types of statements in their

presence. I don't think, as others may do, that requesting compliance

with the law is asking a silly question, as others in this House may do.

MR. SKELLY: I'll be brief in response to the minister's

statement. We're not surprised to hear that one government appointee is

cooperating with another government appointee, but we are surprised to

hear the minister's comments with respect to the rule of law. The

minister justified his firing of the Vancouver School Board as a means

of imposing the law on certain citizens of the province who were in

defiance of that law, and yet there are a number of other school boards

who are mentioned in the resolution the minister attempted to put on

the floor today who are also in defiance of that law, by the minister's

definition. What there seems to be here is not a respect for the rule

of law in this province, but an uneven application of the rule of law;

and an uneven application of the rule of law, Mr. Speaker, isn't the

rule of law. It is not the rule of law; it's anarchy.

Now the minister in his statement revealed that there is some political motivation

in the way he dealt with the Vancouver School Board. The minister indicated

that there was some political motivation in the budget that the Vancouver School

Board submitted. The minister had an opportunity to do precisely what he is

doing with the Burnaby School Board and the Coquitlam School Board right now.

He had the opportunity to discuss the issues with them on the basis of the BRAT

report that his employees submitted. He refused to do it; he summarily dismissed

them; he used the excuse of obedience to the law. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are

trustees in this province today who have been allowed to continue in defiance

of that same law that the minister applied so summarily against the Vancouver

School Board. That is not respect for the rule of law on the part of this government.

I was in Vancouver the day after the minister made his decision — or

I should say implemented the Premier's decision — with respect to the

Vancouver School Board. People in Vancouver, regardless of their

political persuasion — people throughout the province, regardless of

their political persuasion — are embarrassed by this decision. This is

the kind of action on the part of this provincial government that makes

the national news, that makes national television. When there's

confrontation in British Columbia that's been provoked by this

particular government, by this particular Premier, that's what makes

the national news.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The minister was

allowed to proceed with his remarks, and I would ask members to extend

the same courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the people in British Columbia are

concerned about that kind of embarrassment that's been caused them by

this minister's implementation of the Premier's decision. If this

minister or this government has any respect whatsoever for the rule of

law, we ask that they apply that law equally to all citizens of the

province; that they don't negotiate with some and dismiss others; and

that they apply that law equally to all citizens of the province, not

simply to the citizens with whom they disagree politically.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we ask that the government concern itself

with the reputation that this province has in other provinces of Canada

and overseas. If we want to attract people to this province, to invest

in this province, to become full participants in the provincial

economy, what we have to do in British Columbia is lower the level of

confrontation in this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. SKELLY: And one of the ways to do that, Mr. Speaker, is

by not attempting to provoke the kind of response they have received

from school districts in the province.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $214,384.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a couple of specific

questions of the minister, and get some specific answers from her, I

hope, this morning. If the minister is listening.... Are the GAIN

regulations going to be changed to make them conform to the Charter?

That is the

section which discriminates on age, where people under the

[ Page

6007 ]

age of 25 get a different rate of income assistance than people over the age

of 25, Is that going to be amended?

When will the Community Care Facility Act and its regulations — the rewritten one — be ready?

Did you hear the first question about GAIN — the Charter and GAIN; the age discrimination in GAIN? Okay.

My third question is: when will the report on severely disabled children, which was completed in 1981, be released?

Does the minister intend to proclaim

section 8 of the GAIN act this

year? That's the

section which indexes income assistance, or ties it to

the GNP or whichever other index so that there's an automatic increase

as the cost of living goes up.

How many unemployable recipients were there on the income assistance

roll in February of this year? Not employables, but unemployables.

Has Glendale applied for hospital status?

I want to ask again whether the minister intends to increase the

income assistance rates this year. I think that the members of the

opposition have tried to put forward a very forceful and very reasoned

debate on behalf of increasing those income assistance rates. I'm

hoping we won't have to go over that again.

In referring to the questions raised earlier, the minister indicated

— and I'm quoting from Tuesday: "I think that specifics would have to

be put on the order paper, and I would be glad to answer the questions

on the order paper." I've had some questions on the order paper for

quite a while; so has the member for Vancouver Centre, who was a

spokesperson on income assistance and Human Resources before me. They

haven't been answered.

There are actually ten questions on the order paper, if the minister

will take a quick look at them, dealing with the child abuse line,

wanting the figures for 1983-84, asking for some up-to-date figures on

income assistance recipients placed in employment. The very same

questions were asked by my colleague the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann). There are day-care questions about how many people are

presently receiving the subsidy from the government, and what the

average amount of that subsidy is; the question dealing with the

live-in shelter for battered women and children, which was transferred

to the YMCA effective April 1, the Vancouver alternative school

program, which was transferred from the Ministry of Human Resources to

the school board on April 1, 1984 — some information about what is

going to happen to that program now; the ministry-operated child-care

resources in greater Vancouver, which were transferred to societies and

private care-givers: we are asking some information on those,

specifically Sutherland Group Home, Graveley Street Group Home, Ocean

Park Place, Mary Hill Treatment Centre, Alma House, Fifteenth Avenue

Group Home, Burrard Group Home, Seventh Avenue Group Home, Chimo House,

Eileen Corbett Reception Centre, Park House, Janus Centre, Fremlin

House, Cartier House, the PACE program, Avalon School, Project Parent,

Eagle High Alternative School.... On and on it goes. There are

questions concerning the number of children taken into care, the staff

employed by the Ministry of Human Resources, 1982-83, 1983-84 to date.

[10:30]

All of these questions would not have been necessary, incidentally, if we'd

had an annual report to the minister between 1982-83 and the present date. But

as I pointed out earlier, Mr. Chairman, the last annual report we've had

from the ministry is a report dealing with the year 1982-83, which is the reason

that there have to be so many questions to the minister during her estimates

and on the order paper.

There are also questions about the budget for special services to

children and some questions about the interministerial committee, the

same report which I just asked for, which apparently was completed in

1981, and on which we are still waiting for an answer.

Some other questions raised during the debate.... I don't know

whether the minister would like me to give all these questions at once

or if she'd rather interrupt and answer them. I typed them all out, so

I can actually send them over.

How many different people since 1976, including children and

dependent spouses, have been on income assistance in B.C. and how many

heads of family? How many people come off income assistance each day.

Pick a day — for example, February 19, 1985. How many individuals went

through the IOP program in 1984? How many went off income assistance as

a result? How many got a job and how many are still employed or were

employed three months, six months or a year?

Of the 237,000 people on income assistance in February of this year,

how many have been on for 12 months or longer? Does the Ministry of

Human Resources check to see if employers receiving the financial

compensation as a result of the IOP are in fact training the

recipients? What kind of monitoring is actually done on the employers

who use the IOP program? Again, the reason for terminating Jo Arland,

the seniors' counsellor, and how many other seniors' counsellors have

been terminated? Can the minister come up with a menu which includes a

nutritious diet for $3.33 for one day?

There was a report in the April issue of the Kelowna Courier which

says that Kelowna lacks sufficient services for about two-thirds of the

mentally handicapped children and adults living in the area. The

spokesman for the city's largest service-provider to the mentally

handicapped says that the shortage of provincial government funding is

becoming a growing concern. Would the minister like to respond to that

accusation?

My final question has to do with the staff who work for the Ministry

of Human Resources. Mr. Chairman, I covered some of this before closing

on Tuesday but didn't get an adequate response. Lo and behold, I find

in the Province of this morning that the past president of the B.C.

Association of Social Workers is raising the same issue — that of

workers who are not adequately trained being used either as summer

relief or whatever in some pretty serious cases. I'm referring

specifically to the coroner's response to the death of the little Jack

boy, who died while he was in the care of a foster home — not placed by

the ministry, but his.... Apparently his own social worker, with 13

years' experience and who had been following him, was on holidays and

was replaced by a temporary worker with no experience. That apparently

was the breakdown.

The coroner made 29 recommendations to the ministry, and I'm curious

to know what's going to happen to some of those recommendations. The

coroner suggested that the ministry set up a committee to monitor

day-care centres and require them to submit reports annually; also that

the ministry should make every effort to make sure that social workers

know MHR child abuse policy; that the ministry should have a pool of

trained social workers available for holiday relief; and that the

ministry should be more careful how it works

[ Page 6008 ]

with families which have been involved with the

ministry over several generations. That's what we used to call, back in

the old days when I practised social work, the multi-problem family;

but I realize they don't use that term any more.

Mr. Roop Seebaran said:

"'More and more social workers are moving into cases

where they haven't received adequate training, they aren't adequately

equipped and they're not sure how to act!' He said social workers need guidelines

and laws explaining exactly what they should do in child abuse cases. And the

government should review its backup and support systems for social workers."

That's what the child abuse team, which was eliminated, was all about.

That was your pool of experts to which the social workers could turn for consultation,

for advice, for backup, for assistance, and that has disappeared. Apparently

the social workers coming into the system find that they really need to have

that team reinstated.

I was phoned by the New Westminster community legal assistance

office yesterday. They were concerned that,

whereas on average they

receive about one call a month concerning apprehension of children —

and invariably when the child is apprehended the parent or parents will

phone and complain about Human Resources apprehending their child, and

at that point there is some intervention, either to explain to the

parent precisely what's happening or to at least act as a go-between —

they say that they have received five such calls since last Friday.

They're saying it's not that they believe that children who need

immediate protection shouldn't get it, but they are concerned and quite

alarmed at the sudden increase.

My final question is: where children are taken into custody and an

investigation reveals that there has been no abuse, does the ministry

provide any counselling or support services to the child and the family

to deal with the trauma which they have just gone through? This came

out of a story which I know the minister must have read in the Province

— I think it was on Wednesday or Tuesday — about this family talking

about the trauma of this experience. Is there any kind of support or

counselling service for a family like that which has gone through that

kind of experience?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, could I just say on that

last case that it was two or three days ago in the media, and that case

is now in the hands of the court. I'd prefer not to discuss that.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, there are always two sides to every

question: the side printed and the side that finally comes out and

usually isn't given as wide a distribution in the press. But I think

the member well knows that to be true.

Could I just say, however, that generally speaking counselling is

given to the families. That is established within the policies of the

ministry.

I would really like, though, to remark on the one case that is

printed in the paper this morning, the Michael Jack case. Now that case

was not a foster home case. You're confusing that with yet another

case. In that case the father is serving 12 years in prison for the

death of that child. It was in his own home — the father's home and the

child's home. I can tell you that two members of staff were fired over

that particular case, which shows that our ministry acted very quickly

on the knowledge that all of the procedures of the ministry were not

followed through, and therefore it shows that we will not tolerate

staff members who do not follow through with the procedures that are

laid down.

However, in responding to the allegations in the paper regarding

insufficient training, etc., those remarks were attributable to the

immediate past-president of the Association of Social Workers, and it's

the school of social work and the social workers' association from

which most of our staff comes. So I guess that was probably a criticism

of their own association and of their own training in their own school

of social work, rather than a condemnation of our staff in our ministry.

I also want to say that this ministry, as compared with the delivery

of social services, regarding the fight against child abuse, is and has

been the most aggressive, has the most programs in place, and has the

most aggressive attitude against child abuse, child rape, child murder

and child harassment and abuse than any place in this nation, if not

the North American continent. We were the first to put a HELP line for

children in this province. We have uncovered many sad cases. We have

saved many lives because of the HELP line. It was copied by Alberta and

Ontario, and they too have found the same thing. There's more reporting.

There is also a suggestion in the coroner's report that there should

be a greater knowledge within day care and child care centres regarding

the need to report. It's interesting that this very House.... I was

with the former Social Credit administration when we brought in that

law. The mandatory reporting of child abuse was brought in in this

House in 1969, and it's interesting that in 1985 we should read in the

newspaper — a 1985 newspaper — a coroner's report that says that people

should know enough to report child abuse. It's a sad commentary,

really, that it has taken all this time. Even today — this very morning

— people in this province have to be reminded that reporting incidents

of child abuse is mandatory. They cannot withhold it. They do not have

the protection of a doctor-patient relationship. They do not have the

protection of a lawyer-client relationship. They have no protection.

They must report child abuse immediately when it is being seen or

defined by them — in any way of life, any profession, or any area of

responsibility.

But could I say that we have at this present moment — in addition to

what was said some five and a half years ago to be the best training

program for our staff for the incidence of child abuse, and how to

detect it and what to do when it is seen — a training program that has

just been newly updated. It's now initiated within our training

program, which is done, as you know, at the local level in every

community in the province. This brand-new training manual is even

better than the one which was hailed at the time as being the best in

North America. It's been copied too. We've shared that with other

jurisdictions, because it was lauded as the very best.

[10:45]

You mentioned the child abuse team. The child abuse team was not a

deliverer of direct services. It was a team which really did the first

job of training throughout the province. It did a good job; we

appreciated that. Those same people who did not take retirement because

of whatever decision they made at the time when the child abuse team of

nine people — five clerical staff — was cut out.... Those same people

are working with the ministry. They are directly delivering service

now, so that we have them right in the communities delivering the

service. We recognized at the

[ Page 6009 ]

time that we no longer needed that team and that we

wanted to take that kind of training into each individual community and

have each individual community well trained within the community. That

was done. They did that job. It is now being done and repeated with

this brand new program. It is continuing.

Could I say, regarding the coroner's report, that I and my staff

certainly will very carefully analyze the report. Any changes that we

can make we'd be very pleased to make. Anything that will make our

fight against child abuse better.... And we're learning all the time,

even though we think and I can tell you, not only from observation but

from reading other jurisdictions' problems and reports from other

ministries of social services, that it is the best in the country and

the North American continent. We're really proud of what has been

accomplished by my staff. I think that we all as members of this House

should be proud that we have taken an attitude that we won't tolerate

it in this province. We just won't tolerate it. We'll do everything we

can. We go up against human nature and human failure; we all know that.

Anything that we can do to improve it we shall.

I want to refer to one other case that you mentioned. Our ministry

was not directly involved with that particular case where a foster home

was provided. That foster home was provided by the Spallumcheen band,

not by us directly. The Spallumcheen band have a contract with us, an

agreement if you like, and that was one of the very first agreements in

the country where a native Indian band took on the responsibilities for

the delivery of social services within the band. We, however, retained

the right to be called in and to have not only observation and

consultation but also direct services vis-à-vis the protection of

children. In this case the child was not within our ambit of

responsibility but within theirs at the time, and they did not catch it

in time; therefore we were not called in in time and unfortunately that

was the case. We were not directly involved in that case, although it

did seem by the news reports that we were, that's true.

In 1982 we had 8,145 children in care. We now have 7,436 children in

care, the last figure of 1984, and I understand from my deputy minister

— I think we answered this question earlier on the order paper — it is

a little less than this again in 1985. By the way, I don't want to

leave any misinformation regarding that Spallumcheen case. We were

called into that case prior to the child's death, and we did give

consultation and assistance as we always do.

Let me assure you that anything that is said in the coroner's report

of today's date will very definitely be well looked into by our

ministry, and anything that we can do to improve our service in that

regard will be done immediately, if there is anything that needs to be

done.

MS. BROWN: I asked a number of other questions about whether

Glendale has applied for hospital status. Should I go through those one

by one again, or do you have all those responses? The report on the

severely disabled, mentally disabled — those are the questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Glendale has a joint responsibility to the Ministry

of Human Resources — responsible for services for the mentally handicapped —

plus responsibility under the Ministry of Health. They are licensed for extended-care

beds; they have a medical component within Glendale which is recognized and

administered by the Ministry of Health. So we really have a joint responsibility

for Glendale.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, nor will they. I would think they

will not. It has a medical component within it; they have professional

staff and have capabilities for medical staff there, but they would not

be a full hospital in the true sense of the word — an acute-care

hospital.

MS. BROWN: The community care facilities act and regulations

— the rewritten one — when is it going to be ready? The community care

licensing.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Those questions would be referred under the Ministry of Health.

MS. BROWN: I realize that, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was the one who indicated that it was going

to be rewritten, but it's used very extensively by the Ministry of

Human Resources with day care and stuff, so I thought maybe the

minister would have some idea about it. But you don't. Okay.

I asked a question about the seniors' counsellors, and I'm really

quite concerned about that. Yesterday I had the privilege of attending

a pioneer tea in Burnaby with over-nineties, and a number of people

expressed some concern about whether they were going to be losing any

more of the seniors' counsellors. I wonder whether the minister would

respond to my question about Jo Arland and the other seniors'

counsellors.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There is no question that we will not be

decreasing our senior citizens' counsellors. They've done a very good

job. We also are considering some avenue where we can perhaps enhance

that program. We're looking at that one very closely, and we're pleased

about it. You mentioned the name of a senior citizens' counsellor from

Surrey, and I cannot directly respond except to note that I've had a

couple of letters from that senior citizens' counsellor. We have always

had the opportunity to have new counsellors come on and others leave.

It is not a service which people hold for a length of time. They come

in and serve, and then after a year or two there are others who take

their place. They are some of them very much burdened with the burden

of work. It's quite remarkable how many questions they do answer. We

like to keep them changed, and we will continue to do that.

MS. BROWN: The report on the severely handicapped children which was completed in 1981 — is that going to be released?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That final report was released and is

available upon request from the Ministry of Health. I believe that was

some time ago. It was released.... I'm sorry I can't give you the date,

but it's been available for at least a year through the Ministry of

Health.

MS. BROWN: I'm wrapping up now. This is my....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Your swan song?

[ Page 6010 ]

MS. BROWN: This is my swan song.

I just want, in wrapping up, to respond to a couple of things the

minister said about child abuse. I received a report through the office

of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who isn't here, of a

person who did report a child abuse. She filed a complaint. Somehow or

other — we're not sure how it happened — the parents found out that she

was the person who made the complaint. She is living in absolute fear,

because the father of these two little girls, who she reported she

thought was sexually abusing them, has actually threatened her life.

This woman is terrified.

That is just one of the reasons why people are so reluctant to file

some of these reports. I don't think that doctors have any excuse when

they treat a battered child for not reporting that these injuries

obviously didn't come about by the child falling off a chair or

something. But I think that individuals, even though they know it's

their duty and they know it's mandatory, are reluctant because they

feel that they cannot be protected by the ministry or by the law from

some act of retribution on the part of irate parents. That's just an

example of one of the reasons.

I am the debate leader, Mr. Chairman, on Human Resources, but I am

also a social worker, and I'm very interested in what is going on in

the field of social work. I am wondering whether the ministry would

make available to me, just for my own interest in the changes happening

in the field of social work, the updated manual, for example, on the

training of child abuse workers.

Also, I'd like to see the manual on the training of financial-aid

workers, because I am getting a lot of complaints in my office about

conflicting decisions which are being made by the financial-aid

workers. Again, as I pointed out, when they are taken to appeal.... I

know that in a number of reports in the Kamloops area, the

recommendations were that something be done about the training of the

financial-aid workers. What I would like to do is to look at it myself,

and if I perceive that there is anything that could be done better, I

would be very happy to give you my perception based on my experience as

a practising social worker, which I do from time to time.

In wrapping up I want to say that the one thing I really wanted to

get across this year in these estimates was how inadequate the income

rates are, and to really appeal to the ministry that at the first

opportunity that it's possible to increase those rates at all, they

really should be increased. They really are totally inadequate. Even

with the supplementing of the food banks, even with the cutting of

comers, the buying of stale food from the supermarkets and that kind of

thing, $3.33 is not enough money to provide a nutritious diet. I hope

that somehow, before the end of the year when a new budget comes down,

you'll find it within your power, either through warrants or whatever,

to make some kind of increase in the income assistance rates and also

to proclaim

section 8 of the GAIN Act, which is the one which indexes

it and ties it to the cost of living.

MR. DAVIS: Very briefly, a few comments and questions re

group homes. On Tuesday the minister gave an overview of the very

successful transfer of a large number of mentally handicapped British

Columbians from Tranquille to numerous group homes around the province.

I think most people, and certainly the great majority of people who are

in the social welfare industry, regard that as a great accomplishment.

On the North Shore we now have some 21 group homes for physically and

mentally handicapped individuals. The Tranquille transfer involved half

a dozen new group homes on the North Shore, most of them in the Lynn

Valley area. This was a successful privatization effort, if I can

describe it in that fashion. Tranquille had a resident population, at

least of mentally handicapped individuals, of the order of 320. Some 50

or so were so severely handicapped that they were transferred to

Glendale, and the rest — of the order of 260 — were sent to group

homes. We received a number on the North Shore.

[11:00]

The staff support situation interests me. I gather that in full-time

equivalent terms the support in Tranquille was of the order of 450 for

some 320 mentally handicapped residents. On the North Shore the staff

support is of the order of three to one, and in Tranquille, one and a

half to one. One of the circulars issued very recently by the North

Shore Association for the Mentally Handicapped indicated that there

would be some nine residents in three homes, and that the full-time

support staff was of the order of 26. Many of these people who are

performing the support functions are of a different classification,

certainly a different wage or income category, from those in Tranquille.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

I wonder if the minister might care to comment on the changing

nature of the services provided. Certainly the individuals who are now

residents of group homes are dispersed. On the North Shore, at least a

third of them are back in their own home area. They have neighbourhood

opportunities that they certainly didn't have in Tranquille. There is

certainly more staff support, In referring to staff support, I'm not

including doctors or psychiatrists, specialists who may or may not

visit these homes.

I wonder also what the future holds. I know that the North Shore

Association for the Mentally Handicapped was very concerned, initially

at least, as to whether it would really be able to look after these

residents. It endeavoured to select the people that came to the Lynn

Valley area by visiting Tranquille. They did receive several people

whom they're having difficulty looking after; that's understandable.

It's understandable also that some portion of the people who were in

Tranquille would have to go to some more highly specialized place than

individual homes in typical neighbourhoods. There are those who tend to

be physically violent at times; certainly there was evidence of that in

one of the homes I visited in the Lynn Valley area.

But to date the North Shore Association has managed. Over time it

may perhaps have to transfer a few of the residents out of homes and

take others in. Prior to its Tranquille venture it had already been

looking after other residents who were not as severely handicapped, or

who could, with the support of their parents or other relatives, be

looked after more conveniently on the North Shore. Will the numbers be

expanded? What is the future relative to Woodlands as opposed to

Tranquille? Are there others who can be transferred into group homes in

the community, others who, in circumstances more akin to those we

experience, have opportunities to live a fuller life?

I spoke before about the physical layout, the criteria for group

homes which I hope the ministry will draw up. The main reason I'd like

to see certain criteria dictated by the

[ Page 6011 ]

ministry is that under the provincial legislation,

the municipalities have no power whatsoever over zoning as it applies

to group homes — group homes being homes in which six or fewer

unrelated adults reside; In the eyes of some neighbours, at least, this

is a rather novel home.

I do think also that there are certain requirements which are

unique. This is true particularly from the point of view of those who

become residents. For the physically handicapped, certainly one-level

homes should be mandated. I think there should be a generous lot —

yard, lawn, whatever — available around these homes; that they

shouldn't be the typical modern, recently built,

tending-to-be-expensive home on a small lot. One example of a home in

North Vancouver: all of the lot is paved over. It's small and paved

over. Because of pressures real or imaginary from the neighbours, the

residents for the time being have been virtual prisoners in that

particular home. I think we must therefore draw up some guidelines

which will require these private organizations to take greater care in

selecting the group homes in which these British Columbians take up

residence.

Finally, on expenses, costs and so on. I gather that these homes are

purchased by the society in question, but the society is funded totally

by the province. There is also an operating budget. If the minister

could comment on the nature of the operating budget, I'd be interested.

I know the societies are complaining that their budgets per resident

haven't been increased over the last several years. Because we have a

sizeable number of homes on the North Shore, I think the minister's

answers to these questions would be interesting.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, in answer to that last question

regarding the real estate. The province's interest in that real estate

is held safe inasmuch as it cannot be transferred to another party. So

any properties that are purchased in the group homes through a

society.... However, if the service is not delivered, it reverts to

the Crown.

In terms of the staff support, could I tell you that at the time

there were in Tranquille 325 clients, there were 584 staff. As opposed

to the number that you quoted in these last few minutes, the staff

totalled almost 600 in Tranquille. When one deinstitutionalizes the

services that would be done jointly in Tranquille — i.e., food

services, laundry services — they are done individually in the home, as

you know. That is why there is a high ratio of client to staff. Also

it's a 24-hour staff, around the clock staff.

You did ask the question regarding the fate of Woodlands. We have a

commitment, as a policy of government, to deinstitutionalize the large

institutions over the next decade. We have not activated any program

for Woodlands at the present time.

Could I just make mention of the North Shore association, which you

mentioned. It is probably one of the most active associations in the

province. We fund them because they deliver a good service, and they

were one of the organizations that did very well at assessing the

clients coming from Tranquille. There were some that they refused as

being too medically fragile to move into their community. They

themselves understood that. They're extremely well qualified to this

work and have done a very good job in that regard.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to draw to the attention of

the minister the excellent work that our constituency and community

office does in handling many problems in our community. Many of them

are of a human resources nature, and we work closely with line workers

and supervisors at the various offices. But I must say that our office

has seen a massive increase in the last while. For some period of time

we have been handling about 300 individuals per month, but that has

escalated over the last few months to something in the order of 400

cases a month. They are of various natures, but they are predominantly

human resources problems.

I want to give one example of the kind of grief that is experienced

by individuals when they cannot be dealt with expeditiously by ministry

staff. Because they are so shorthanded and because the caseloads are so

large, the administrative reviews take so long and this is an added

burden to the grief experienced by individuals in the community.

I have one case of an individual who has been unemployed for two

years. He's a former serviceman, a resident of Victoria and has been

unemployed since November 1984. He's actively looking for work, but

there's no work to be found in this region. He's collecting UIC. He

changed his address, and while waiting for the change of address to go

through.... Sometimes things happen and they compound a person's

problem. There was a break-and-enter in his apartment, and he was

forced to vacate his premises. He went to the Fernwood office for

emergency MHR relief and was refused. He was put up at the Cool Aid

hostel for three weeks. He appealed to MHR for a crisis grant and was

told by them that the longest he would have to wait for the results of

the administrative review would be 10 days; and yet he waited three

weeks. Meanwhile, the Cool Aid staff gave him $10 a week and he was put

on the street every day at 9:30 in the morning and returned at 4:30 in

the afternoon. He had to wait three weeks for the results of the

review. In the meantime, out of desperation, he went to the ombudsman,

who referred him to the Law Centre, who in turn referred him to our

office. Our staff made numerous calls and so on. This time sequence

indicates the kind of situation that individuals are confronted with

when they come off UIC or, for some reason or another, are denied at a

first level of application for benefits. This particular individual has

indicated to us that he doesn't care any more about the money that he

lost, but he is certainly incensed at the callousness and the total

insensitivity that he feels in terms of the overall administrative

structure of MHR. That is an individual's perception that I am bringing

forward to the minister today. We can multiply that grief and that kind

of experience hundreds and thousands of times over in British Columbia

every single day — the kind of situation that they're experiencing

because of the poorly managed economy that we have under this

government.

I also don't want the minister's estimates to go by without making

my own comments about the fact that in the last year she disbanded the

James Bay health and human resources board. That action wasn't required

at all. In fact, it even caught the Ministry of Health officials off

guard; they didn't see any real justification for that whatsoever. It

was a politically vindictive move, because the James Bay health and

human resources board, along with a couple of those little boards that

were still situated around British Columbia, sat and existed as a

beacon of an alternative way of delivering health and human resources

services. They stood as an example of how communities could themselves

prudently manage their own affairs, determine their own needs at the

community level, and administer those needs in a fiscally responsible

way. There was never any question of the way that finances were

managed, of the volume of work that was done,

[ Page 6012 ]

of the competence of the staff and the sensitivity of working level

people, working in concert with communities and community organizations

such as Silver Threads and James Bay New Horizons, and Meals on Wheels,

and all of the integrated things that were happening as a result of

that excellent program brought forward by the NDP between 1972 and 1975

under the leadership of Norman Levi and his very able staff.

I hope that after the next election one of the first orders of

business is to chart that course again and give the people of the

province the right to determine their own needs at the local level and

to be prudently managing their own affairs.

[11:15]

I want to say that it was a disservice to that community. There are

11,000 people in the neighbourhood. I say "neighbourhood" with a

capital "n"; it really is a neighbourhood. It was because of the James

Bay health and human resources board that they were able to initiate

many important programs on a volunteer basis. They were able to take

volunteer coordinators and translate that into thousands and thousands

of meaningful and worthwhile services to seniors and children and

others in need including single parents.

The meals program that the seniors look after in the James Bay

school has been of concern for funding, because they were worried that

they would have to let the cook go, that there wouldn't be adequate

salary for the cook. As the minister is aware, Mr. Chairman, many of

the seniors volunteer in the cooking, washing-up and serving of food.

But most importantly, that is a catalyst to bring many hundreds of

seniors out of their apartments, out to meet and be active with their

peers and others in the community, to assist them in maintaining good

health. Everyone knows that proper activity is important for seniors.

To keep people active and alert and in good health means that they have

to have opportunities to get out of their apartments, to get to places

where they can enjoy the company of others and feel that they are

functioning citizens in society. When she disbanded the James Bay

health and human resources board she made that particular objective

quite a bit harder. There was no need for it. It was a politically

vindictive thing. Of course, with their resilience the James Bay

community was able to react in a flexible and adaptive way. They formed

a society, and they're attempting to pursue the same level of service

and the kinds of goals that were very much a part of their program. But

there was no need to centralize the authority again back in the

bureaucracy, because clearly it is at the local level that constituents

and community groups function best, and where the level of service can

be most cost-effective and sensitive — of the highest level.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate the tremendous work that is

done by volunteers and staff in our community constituency office

trying to help people in need — and they're coming in ever-greater

numbers, The Human Resources ministry is the ministry that clearly

reflects the failed economic policies of the government, because the

rolls are getting bigger, and the caseloads are getting bigger, more

onerous and more stressful on the line workers and the staff of MHR. My

hat is off to the employees of MHR. They try to function at the best

possible level, given the enormous need that exists in the community

because of the failed economic policies of this government.

We had an administrative structure set up with community

accountability, fiscal accountability and cost effectiveness. It was a

beacon. People from all over the world were coming to visit this

administration of social and health services. People were coming from

other provinces of Canada. New Brunswick was looking at instituting

health and human resource boards on the NDP model in British Columbia.

And here we are going backwards, as we are economically, in the

delivery of health and social services in an integrated fashion.

I certainly want to register my displeasure at the way this minister

has handled the James Bay health and human resources centre approach

and is continually building up these enormous rolls, when she should be

fighting with her colleagues for proper economic planning and job

creation programs that make meaningful jobs and lives for the people of

this province. They certainly deserve it, because we have the wealth,

we have the resources and we have talented people. We have universities

that are ready and willing to help our people; yet at the same time her

colleague the Universities minister (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is clobbering the

universities and her colleague in Education is clobbering the school

system, attempting to condemn a whole generation of British Columbians

to sweeping up around McDonald's, picking up scraps from the high-tech

industries and sweeping up under the conveyor belts of industry, when

our people could be doing meaningful jobs, leading the country in all

sorts of highly skilled areas and retooling our industry to meet the

challenges of the future. Her government is condemning our kids to a

life of welfare and social assistance. We now have whole generations of

British Columbians who haven't had the opportunity to have work, and

there is no work in the future. I really regret the way this government

is pursuing these policies, and we see it most clearly in the

administration of a massive and growing social servants' agency under

this minister. It really is a disgrace.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, regarding the James Bay

closure, James Bay, as the member would know, was, along with two other

areas in the province — there were only three in the province — an

anomaly in the system. They did not....

MR. HANSON: They were NDP projects.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I didn't realize that.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for the closure was to make services

consistent throughout the province. As the member will know, the

district office is retained there — the direct community services are

still retained. What we really cut out was a duplication of

administration costs, and that was the reason for the closure. The

delivery of the service is still going on.

Mr. Chairman, could I just respond to the member, because he spent a

lot of time on the specifics, and I'd be grateful if he would provide

me with the gentleman's name — the ex-serviceman who had difficulties

with the system in getting a response on some service. We appreciate

that there can be some glitches in the system. You mentioned three

services all funded by us that he got service from, so it wasn't that

he didn't receive services; he did receive them. As you say, there was

a delay in time. I'd be very glad to look at his case if you would

provide me with his name. If you have a specific at any time, please

let me know. It's very hard to respond in general to the accusation of

lack of service. All I can say is that our staff, I think, does a very

responsible job of delivering service. Where we find that there are

difficulties, we either add support or we fix the system so that it will

[ Page 6013 ]

deliver a better service. If you can give me examples of those, I'd be glad to address them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, and a bright day it is indeed.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, it's Forestry Week. We were considering a whole range of important job-creation projects in the chamber.

I want to apologize to the House this morning, because I misled the

House two days ago — not deliberately, but I did mislead the House two

days ago, and I am apologizing forthwith. On the question of the matter

of chasing after spouses that leave wives and children in the province,

I noted that the minister had been tracking this problem since 1976.

Well, I have to admit my research was inadequate. I've. now reviewed

the files that are available. Indeed, this minister has been

assiduously following this problem since — would you believe...?

Would anybody try to guess a date?

AN HON. MEMBER: The early 40s.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's unfair.

We have 1967 as a result of our latest research. Since 1967 the

Minister without Portfolio in those days indicated that this was a

matter of major concern. On June 27, 1967, the Victoria Times reported

that the minister had met with a deserted mother, and she said: "I have

some far-reaching recommendations to make to the minister who is

responsible. I am getting quite a fund of information, but it's

surprising how few people know the information."

It's now been 18 years that the minister has been disseminating this

information and tracking the problem. I wouldn't want the House to

think that she'd only been working on it since 1976, after those

terrible three years of the NDP administration; she has been working on

this problem assiduously since 1967. On July 13, 1967, in the Vancouver

Sun , she said: "It's one of the biggest problems with welfare

services, and that is the deserted wife." It's one of the biggest

problems, and she's been minister now for some 10 years, since those

days of 1975.

She said again in 1970, just to bring the record up again: "It's

important to take this to the news media. I also ask you to spread the

word that we are going to do something to enforce this issue to make a

better life for these people." That's in 1970.

It's one of the major problems that the minister saw in terms of

human resources misery in the province, and 18 years later, it still

isn't intact. I've tried to just think. I suppose it's been something

that the minister has been concerned about and harbouring almost since

the age of majority — if it's 18 years, that's what it must be.

So clearly, Mr. Chairman, the jury is still out. You know, the lady

that used to be called Amazing Grace has indicated throughout these

estimates that she does not have a hands-on operation of her

department. She's not able to provide the data; she's not able to

deliver. It's pretty clear that she is the recipient of downgrading

within the cabinet system. That's been the problem, and that's not

surprising — 18 years dealing with that one question, a question that

is still not yet resolved, a question on which the jury is indeed still

out.

Vote 42 approved.

On vote 43: ministry programs, $1,464,102,542.

MS. BROWN: Just the size of that sum is a clear indictment of the mismanagement of the economy by that government.

Vote 43 approved.

On vote 82: transit services, $74,300,000.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have my estimates with me. Could the minister advise us what this appropriation is for?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Transit services.

Vote 82 approved.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe we could have the advice of the House

Leader. I understand Bill 17 is also coming up and is a matter of

comparable subject material, to some extent.

[11:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's understood.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 17.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't intend to take a great deal of the time

of the House on this matter right now. But I think it is worthwhile

reflecting again on what the kind of capital costs are that we're

dealing here with this system. What we're talking about in terms of

these new extensions that have been proposed is something in the order

of $52,000 per rider in terms of extending to Scott Road, or some

$48,000 to extend to Brunette. We really should reflect on that: a

capital cost per rider around the $50,000 level. That's the kind of

system that's being built in Vancouver. It's an incredibly costly

system. It's a system that, because of its cost, realistically can't be

extended to serve the suburbs on any significant scale.

What is proposed in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is an extension of

borrowing from $900 million to $1.5 billion, an extension of $600

million. It's not clear to me how that $600 million is intended to be

allocated. Will the $600 million include the extension to north Surrey?

Can the minister advise us? Can he nod his head? I know that when he

initially spoke he didn't

[ Page 6014 ]

mention that. So it looks to me like these are existing borrowings

and existing plant that's being completed to New Westminster. It's the

three months' operating costs for the system that are being rolled into

capital, and beyond that there are other amounts, I guess, in terms of

establishing the system. It looks to me like it doesn't include the new

extension that has been announced by government.

What we're talking about is the possibility of a $2 billion system

in order to get to Surrey. That's extraordinary. If we're to serve even

the beginnings of the Coquitlam area, then we're starting to push

beyond the $2 billion level. Mr. Speaker, it's an incredibly costly

system that certainly can't be provided, or comparable stuff provided,

elsewhere. We've got 1, I00-odd kilometres of existing bus line versus

21 kilometres that we're getting for the same amount of money. That's

the kind of system we bought here, and it's extraordinary.

I'd like to note that even the existing system has not yet received

approval from the city of Vancouver in terms of the permits and

licences department, in terms of safety, in terms of fire hazard and

the like. Some 24 matters were put before this administration

concerning the safety and the effectiveness of this system. Many of

those have been resolved, but there are still ten major matters being

dealt with between the city of Vancouver and this administration in

terms of how this system will run. Those are concerns of the fire

department, the police department, and the department of permits and

licences in Vancouver. So we've got a billion-dollar system here that

hasn't yet passed the test of the administrators in the city of

Vancouver — fire and police people. That's a pretty real concern.

I guess some of this new $600 million will be used to test the

system to satisfy the city police, the city fire people, and the

department of permits and licences. There are ten major issues still to

be looked at with respect to this untried system, a system that's now

costing us four times what the earlier minister, Mr. Vander Zalm, said

it was going to cost. It's a debt bomb for the province of British

Columbia, a debt bomb for the municipalities that are affected, a debt

bomb that motorists and property-owners in the lower mainland are going

to be saddled with for the rest of their lives, with a 30-year mortgage

wherein the interest won't be fully paid until the twelfth or

thirteenth year. It won't be until then that we start touching

principal. What we're talking about here is the equivalent of a

homeowner finding a high-flying banker to give him a second mortgage on

his house so he can keep up the payments on the first mortgage. Every

homeowner in British Columbia knows that's economic madness. No credit

union lender, even with a $5,000 lending limit, would engage in that

kind of crazy loan. They'd be in receivership in no time. Nobody would

do it. Only this so-called businessmen's government of British Columbia

would load this kind of crazy debt onto its population for some 30

years. It's a debt bomb that will be ticking away for 30 years, a debt

bomb that most of the transit experts of the world blew the whistle on

years ago; something we're all to be saddled with.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East

asks whether the bill covers the system as presently under construction

or whether it includes financial provisions for future extensions. I

think it's obvious to anyone who has followed the press coverage of

construction costs and so on of the ALRT project that it's the latter:

that it covers future extensions — extensions, crudely put — to the

extent of 50 percent of the system currently being completed.

I'm concerned about those additional expenditures. I'd like to be

sure that only those sections which genuinely make economic sense are

built not in one area particularly to the exclusion of others. I would

like to see a stub into Surrey and a stub into Coquitlam: to large

park-and-ride areas at Scott Road in Surrey and to a very large

park-and-ride area at Brunette in Coquitlam. If that were the plan of

B.C. Transit, I believe future expenditures of the order of $250

million would be better spent than if it was put exclusively into an

extension to — and well into — Surrey.

I've expressed that concern before. I hope the government is

reviewing both the cost estimates of these several extension

possibilities and the prospective ridership generated by them. I'm

personally convinced that by extending just into Surrey and just into

Coquitlam, the additional ridership generated will be larger than by

extending exclusively into Surrey. In other words, I think a

cost-benefit study would come down very heavily on the side of a Y

which includes an extension to Coquitlam as well as into Surrey.

There is concern about the scale of the investment. By the end of

this year — by the time commercial operations begin — the investment

will be approaching $1 billion. The capital cost of the system as

originally envisaged — that is, from waterfront Vancouver to downtown

New Westminster — will be of the order of $800 million. Perhaps less;

unlikely to be more. There are certain other costs which should be

recognized, Mr. Speaker. One is interest during construction, and that

isn't included in the figure. What is included in the figure, as if it

were provincial funds, is what in current dollar terms is around a $100

million contribution from the federal government. So the net investment

that the province has made of its own initiative will have been of the

order of $700 million plus interest during construction.

Now that's phase one. There are certain run-in costs — I'll call

them operating and maintenance training costs and so on, preliminary to

operations next year — which will have to be capitalized, and they will

be of the order of $20 million or $30 million. But on balance, the

province has had to find or is in the process of finding something less

than $900 million to complete phase one.

Phase two, if it were to include a Y both to Surrey and Coquitlam,

would add another $200 million to $250 million to that $900 million

figure. But clearly those numbers are short of $1.5 billion, the amount

requested. It's common practice in this House, Mr. Speaker, as you well

know, to ask for more than may be required over the next couple of

years to cover all eventualities, and this has certainly been the

practice in respect to B.C. Hydro. The amounts requested have exceeded

the corporation's immediate or shorter-term projection of capital costs.

So the number $1.5 billion should not be in itself regarded as very

significant. It should be seen as providing scope for future expansion

over some period of years, and not an immediate charge on the treasury.

The hon. member for Vancouver East talks as if this is a unique

requirement, a unique request from the Legislature for permission to

raise capital and invest in large projects.

Of course B.C. Hydro's endeavours — those of other large Crown

corporations, but particularly B.C. Hydro — have proceeded for years on

this basis, on a maximum amount for borrowing, an amount up to which

the province

[ Page

6015 ]

may or may not guarantee the bonds. So this is not unprecedented;

it's by no means new. It's been going on for many years — I'd say

decades — and continued, of course, during the years when the NDP were

in power and when B.C. Hydro was expanding and considering large

projects, several of which were larger, as it turned out, in capital

cost terms than the ALRT project. It's not all that unique. But still,

I think we owe it, certainly to the people of the province, to make

sure that we make the best long-term investment, having regard to all

the other possibilities to which the money could be put.

[11:45]

I've said previously that this is really a long-term investment. It

doesn't make sense if we're only looking ahead a decade. It makes an

awful lot of sense if we're looking ahead 20 or 30 years. It makes a

great deal of sense if we're at all concerned with the nature of

overall development of the lower mainland and of the transportation

arteries serving the lower mainland.

The ALRT rail line, with its twin tracks, can ultimately carry as

many people as a dozen to 14 lanes of any combination of

super-highways. Were they to be built, even scheduling over time, as

opposed to building ALRT, their capital cost — and it would be largely

a cost to the province — would be several times that of light-rail

rapid transit.

I think that in capital terms it's a wise investment. In terms of

utilization of space, regional planning, city planning and

neighbourhood planning, it makes even more sense, because it conserves

space, it certainly conserves energy and it's much less vulnerable to

inflation because the operating costs are so low. Because it's

automated, because of its high degree of energy efficiency, it will

save on energy; it will save on manpower; it's less inflation prone;

and time, in effect, will float it off, as it has floated off many home

mortgages over the years. By the mid-1990s it will have proven itself

to be as cheap as buses per ride, and thereafter we're laughing. It

will have been seen to have been a very wise investment.

The hon. second member for Vancouver East talks about other systems

that vary all the way from an equivalent to our old interurban system

right up to the heavyweight systems which are being installed in the

largest cities in the world. He chooses the cheapest: those that carry

few people, can carry a small total number of riders in a given day,

peak hour or year. He chose for comparison, for instance, the so-called

Tijuana Trolley — the rail line operating from San Diego south to

Tijuana. That system uses a conventional railway line. The odd train

which runs on it has to squeeze itself in between freight trains. When

it meets a train coming the other way, it has to wait in a bay. The

line required very little upgrading. The cars come from West Germany.

It is inconvenient except for those who want a low fare from south of

San Diego into San Diego and who have no particular time

schedule to

meet. Very few cars run in each train. The trains run every couple of

hours. It's obviously not a commuter train at all. It's a little bit

like a glorified Budd car system on the B.C. Rail. To compare it with

light rail rapid transit requirements, particularly in a city like

Vancouver with limited space downtown and the prospect of a large

increase in- population over the years, is ludicrous.

He talks about the city of Vancouver having to have a veto over fire requirements.

This is a unique system. It has brought about the need for a set of national

standards to govern fire and safety. Those standards are in the process of being

developed. They're being developed on the back of the system. They'll

be in place and then be legislated nationally by the time the system operates.

The system will in fact meet those stipulations. There's really no great

concern on that score except that the city fire people, who have had little

or no experience with this kind of thing and have no concern about costs, because

they bear none of the costs, are naturally asking for the moon, and there have

been differences of opinion and may continue to be for some time,

Finally, the hon. member for Vancouver East says the former

minister, Bill Vander Zalm, said that the first figure on ALRT was a

quarter of the projected figure. That's nonsense. If Bill Vander Zalm

said it he certainly would recant now if he were asked whether he meant

it. The first figures I ever heard the minister quote were of the order

of $300 million. Now $300 million, for a system that's now turning out

to cost around S800 million, didn't include many things. It was a

figure developed by the GVRD in 1978, and it was 1978 dollars; it

didn't allow for inflation. It didn't include any land costs,

provisions for handicapped, or any provision for the payment of federal

and provincial taxes, which now are of the order of $75 million on that

project. It didn't allow for the fact that when built the system could

carry some 30,000 people each way per day, instead of some 10,000. It

didn't allow for the fact that cars could be introduced in the future

that may weigh up to 25 percent more than the present cars.

In other words, we've got a very different system, a much more

capacious or capable system. We've paid taxes all the way.

Incidentally, we've bought land for which there were no estimates —

land which ultimately will be sold at a profit. They certainly didn't

allow for taxes. So what was $300 million has become $800 million for

very good reasons, and I therefore quarrel as emphatically as I can

with the member when he says that someone who really considered the

matter said it has cost four times as much. It hasn't. They are

different dollars, a great deal more has been delivered and it's a far

better system than was originally envisaged.

What the NDP would have built, I assume.... I assume they

wouldn't have stopped at Broadway, but merely gone from downtown

Vancouver to Broadway as they said they would during the last election.

They would have built a system, I assume, using German cars — rather

like the Calgary and Edmonton systems — running on B.C. Hydro's

single-rail line track, and they would have had to install a fair

amount of that at grade level throughout. They wouldn 't have used the

downtown tunnel. They'd probably have stopped short somewhere around

the end of False Creek. That system would not have done anything for

anybody. It wouldn't have attracted increased ridership, and it would

have cost at least two-thirds of the present system.

So what they were offering, what they say now they would have done,

doesn't make sense. It didn't make sense then; it certainly doesn't

make sense now. They would have invested a large sum of money,

certainly in excess of $500 million, for little or no result

whatsoever. So I take issue with the hon. member for Vancouver East. I

think he's trying to make something out of situations which never

existed, or he's trying to make something out of a system which he will

have to admit in a few year's time is a great success.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm going to borrow a phrase from my colleague

to my left, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is known

for saying in this House: "I can't believe it." I'm going to say to the

member who just took his seat: I can't believe your comments.

[ Page 6016 ]

If I remember correctly, he actually said we were all going to be

laughing after this is all over. I want to tell him that the people who

have to pay the bill — here's another $600 million for an untried

system — are not going to be laughing. The people who I represent in

Burnaby are certainly not going to be laughing, because we're all going

to be saddled with paying for this — not only us but our children and

our grandchildren — all because this government insisted on pushing

down the throats of the regional districts a plan which happened to be

the baby of one minister who isn't even here anymore. It was something

that looked good, that was flashy, but there was no concern at all

about whether it was a tried system nor about the ultimate costs. And

here we are faced with another $600 million that we have to approve

because of something that's sitting out there now. You can't just leave

it, yet we don't know how it's going to be paid for.

The people of Burnaby would like to know, as well as others across

the province, how all this extra money is going to be raised. More

property taxes? Increased fares? How? We're not told anything. We're

just told to go ahead and sit here like little ciphers and approve it.

I know the Minister of Finance is not the member responsible for

transit. It's difficult for him to give detailed answers. So the

opposition is caught in a bit of a bind. We did attempt to get some of

these answers from the minister in charge. But that minister is in

charge of asking us to approve it. I hope he can tell us if he is

satisfied, if he's bringing this before us, that it is going to be paid

for with the least impact on the local citizen, who is now already

crushed by taxes. This is my concern.

The member who just took his seat asked what the NDP would do:

"They'd bring in their transit system." I want to tell you what the NDP

would do, Mr. Speaker. The NDP would have listened to the regional

transit board — whatever it was called at that time — that had worked

for years. The mayors and their appointees from the lower mainland had

worked for years preparing suggestions for a transit system for the

lower mainland. They were completely ignored. The NDP would have

listened to those people. It wouldn't have been just our idea; it would

have been the idea of experts and elected officials, who were going to

have to help raise the money. That's who would have been part of

developing a new system. We wouldn't be part of a government that comes

in here and rams a system down the throats of people without even

asking them if they approve. An untried system, and we're all stuck

with it. What concerns me is that it's another $600 million, and we

really don't know how it's going to be paid for. Who is going to bear

the brunt of this money?

There is another bill coming up, Mr. Speaker, that deals with exemptions from

taxes for the ALRT transit system, and at that time I want to deal specifically

with the impact of ALRT on the citizens of Burnaby. But I do want to protest

that to my mind, this $600 million borrowing is going to be another nightmare

imposed on the people by the Socred government.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting. I'm not going to

say I can't believe it — my colleague has already said that — but it's

interesting to me that we come in to approve an additional $600 million

of borrowing for ALRT, and we don't know where the money is going. If

the minister had got up and given a speech indicating specifically why

he needs this money.... He's even got his colleague from North

Vancouver-Seymour confused. He isn't quite sure whether it's for one

extension, two extensions, or no extension.

The fact of the matter is, we're being asked to vote here on $600

million of borrowing for a system that is very narrow in its delivery

of service; a system that comes down a corridor....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is doing his normal thing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: I'm sure that the member for Boundary Similkameen

will give us his reasons for voting for a sum of money whose direction

hasn't even been indicated, other than that it's for ALRT. We are stuck

with that very expensive proposition. I am not an expert, I am not an

engineer, so I'm not going to give a great value judgment about what we

should have done as an alternative. I know what other jurisdictions

have done as an alternative, and they haven't gone for as expensive a

system. Let's hope, Mr. Speaker, that we do come out of this thing

with our shirts, because it strikes me, the way the cost is growing for

such a narrowly based system, that it had better have an awful lot

going for it.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada