1984 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3649 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Closure of ambulance dispatch centres. Mr. Lockstead ––

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies

–– 3650

Teacher layoffs. Mr. Rose –– 3650

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On vote 27: minister's office –– 3652

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Rose

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Davis

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources

estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 39: minister's office –– 3661

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Sanford

Presenting Reports

Special committee on selection, Mr. Ree –– 3671

Mr. Howard

Appendix –– 3673

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are

several people from the independent insurance agents' association of

British Columbia. In particular I would like to introduce the

president, who is from that great north country of Terrace in the

constituency of Skeena, Mr. Derek Francis and his wife Zena. I would

ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the members' gallery this afternoon, we

have a constituent from Columbia River. It's not very often that I have

the opportunity of introducing people from my constituency, being far

away from the capital. We have Mr. Charles McGregor from Fairmont Hot

Springs, and I would like everyone to join me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to welcome

the parents of my secretary to the galleries today. I would like the

House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Armand Amyotte from Alberta.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon

are several people from my constituency. Representatives of the Surrey

Teachers' Federation and some concerned parents and members of the

Surrey School Board are here to meet with the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the two members for Surrey. I would ask the

House to welcome Peter Woroniuk, Alice Zilber, Moira Mackenzie, Peter

Mandoli, Harvey Ostroff, William Tucker, Marilyn Kerr, Joe Morris, Ron

Bonner, Jim Snow and Ben Rychly. I think it is appropriate that we have

this large delegation in Victoria representing Surrey and showing the

concerns that the people in Surrey have so that all members of the

House are well aware of these concerns.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to join in

welcoming the group from Surrey who are visiting with us today. I wish

them every success in their mission to preserve the educational system

of Surrey.

MR. R. FRASER: From the great city of Vancouver, which will

be host to the world at Expo 86, I'd like to introduce Mr. Jack Lewis,

secretary-manager of the Insurance Agents' Association of B.C. Would

you please welcome him.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming

today Miss Nancy Larose, the editor of the newsletter for the Women's

Network in the great city of Victoria.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today from the

great riding of Okanagan North is Mr. Barry Amies. I'd like you to give

him a welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, our colleagues have been introducing

members of the Insurance Agents' Association of British Columbia who

had dialogue with our caucus today. It is my pleasure to introduce the

past-president and the chairman of the self-regulation committee, Mr.

Conrad Speirs of Vancouver. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the precincts today, if not in the

gallery, is Mr. Bud Smith, a conservation officer from Nanaimo, I will

later this afternoon be presenting him with the conservation officer of

the year award on behalf of the Shikar-Safari world organization, which

recognizes outstanding work by conservation officers. I would like the

House to recognize him.

Oral Questions

CLOSURE OF AMBULANCE DISPATCH CENTRES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Health. On

February 17 I drew to the minister's attention an extremely dangerous

situation in which the new ambulance dispatch system in Powell River

from Nanaimo was breaking down. Not only has the minister failed to

respond to my question, but there have been continuing scandalous

delays placing my constituents at extreme risk since that date. Will

the minister now respond to my question, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member, I am sorry I haven't brought

that response from your earlier question, but the remainder of your

statement is absolute nonsense.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We will see where the nonsense lies in this

House. I think you will find it over there, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of

fact, I wish to serve notice now that I will table documents on this

matter at the conclusion of question period. The documents are in the

form of memoranda from the Powell River fire chief, who has first-hand

experience with the problems created by the minister's new dispatch

system — created in the name of restraint, when people's lives are at

stake, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise whether or not he regards

this complete breakdown in the dispatch system as an acceptable

standard of ambulance service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there is a

complete breakdown of the ambulance service, as the member said — I

don't know who is writing his garbage. And I don't accept that it's

extremely dangerous, nor do I accept that it's a continuing, scandalous

situation. Again I regret that I haven't responded to your precise

question of February 17; I thought I had it with me today. I will have

someone in the office find that material for you.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the member wishes to frighten

people in the Powell River area or whether he wants some legitimate

answers to the questions he put forward, but I will get a response from

the emergency health people, the chairman and others, and detail to the

best extent possible precisely what has occurred over the past period

of time. If there have been any extremely difficult situations, I know

the emergency health people would be well aware of them and would have

some information for me to give to that member. I will attempt to get

that information as quickly as possible, but I just wish the member

would use less inflammatory language for a situation with which he is

not intimately familiar.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, there's a minister who doesn't

know what's happening in his own ministry. We have people....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 3650 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, you allowed that member to get

away with editorial remarks, and I demand that right myself in this

House: a minister who doesn't know how to administer his own ministry!

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask leave of the House to

table this document, which will refute those ridiculous statements the

minister just made. Will the minister advise why he closed the Powell

River ambulance dispatch system centre without ensuring that an

adequate system was in place and completely tested for operating

effectiveness? Mr. Speaker, this matter does not pertain only to the

area of Powell River; it's only because of the close situations we've

had that I'm raising it in terms of Powell River. It applies throughout

the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I now ask for leave to table this document to enlighten

the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: At the conclusion of question period, hon.

member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you know the rules?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I know the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is question

period, and the members are familiar with the rules that guide us for

this very short period of time.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit

answers to two members of the House regarding the sale of PCL. You will

recall that on February 27 I had a question from the member for Atlin

(Mr. Passarell) regarding the sale of the assets of Pacific Coach

Lines, which has been sold to three bidders. I would like to respond to

that and then to the member for Victoria in another question.

[2:15]

Details relating to the sale of assets of PCL are as follows:

Maverick Coach Lines –– 14 buses, $756,000; spare components and parts,

$22,000; two hydraulic hoists, $2,100; PCL

(1984) Ltd. –– 32 buses,

$1,627,000; three non-passenger vehicles, $17,000; maintenance shop

equipment, tools etc., $25,000; Gray Line of Victoria –– 26 buses,

$758,000. It should be noted that in all three agreements for sale the

purchase price of the buses is in excess of their current book value

and an "orderly disposal" appraisal recently commissioned by the

company. I would like to interpret that, if you would like. The name of

the purchaser, Maverick Coach Lines.... The net book value was

$487,185; appraised value, $663,500; selling price, $756,000. I can

give those details in written form to the member later to save time in

question period.

Pacific Coach Lines

(1984) Ltd. have also agreed to purchase spare

parts up to a value of $200,000 and office furniture and equipment up

to a value of $2,500. Gray Line of Victoria have agreed to purchase

spare parts up to a value of $100,000 and office furniture and

equipment up to a value of $30,000. Sale of spare parts is to be at 50

percent of a Pacific Coach Lines inventory evaluation, while sale of

office furniture and equipment is to be at wholesale fair market value.

Details relating to these sales are under negotiation at the present

time.

It should be noted that while the purchase price on assets sold

today is less than the total worth of the company as reported in Public

Accounts ,

only a small portion of Pacific Coach Lines assets have been sold.

Indeed, the largest single item on the company's assets balance sheet

is more than $5 million in the capital replacement fund. These moneys,

along with other cash accounts of Pacific Coach Lines, less any

associated cost, will be returned to government following the windup of

the company.

Only fixed assets have been sold. The total book value of these

assets as reported March 31, 1983, is $4,552,976; moreover, this amount

includes land and buildings valued at $1,163,352 which are yet to be

sold. In addition 41 buses remain to be sold along with the still

considerable inventory of spare parts and office furniture and

equipment. I will endeavour to keep the House informed, Mr. Speaker, as

these sales are completed.

The principals in Pacific Coach Lines

(1984) Ltd., which intends to

operate the cross-water route between Vancouver and Victoria, are W.W.

Watson, now assistant general manager with PCL; Bjorn Bjornson, now PCL

comptroller; and D.W. Gordon Levett, who is a former employee of PCL.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know it

should happen at the end of question period, but at the rate we're

going we may not get there.

The minister is taking advantage of question period to give lengthy,

detailed answers to a question, which by your own ruling some time ago,

Mr. Speaker.... If they are to be of that nature, then they should be

considered as if they are returns filed to questions and dealt with

after question period instead of taking up the time of question period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order,

when a member asks a technical question during the oral question

period, needless to say it is one which will require a lengthy answer

in some instances. We have an order paper here on which members of the

opposition can ask technical questions. Only 30 questions have been

asked this session –– 26 of them by Social Credit members and only four

by members of the opposition. If they want to ask questions during oral

question period that rightfully belong on the order paper, they'd

better be prepared to accept the answers during oral question period as

well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will undertake to

address this matter at the conclusion of question period.

TEACHER LAYOFFS

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I serve notice that I'd like to

participate in that little debate after question period. I don't want

to take any more of the time, because at least 25 percent of the

question period has been taken up by that answer, which could have been

given earlier.

I have a question to the Minister of Education. In view of the

developing crisis in School District 33 and to avoid major layoffs, has

the minister decided to meet with the Surrey School Board to discuss

the granting of emergency aid of $1 million under

section 6 of the

Education (Interim) Finance Act, which he is permitted to do?

[ Page 3651 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is

referring to School District 36 and not 33.

MR. ROSE: Did I say 33?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It was close, but it wasn't close enough.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member is referring to some discussions

he had with the group of people who arrived today from Surrey. I also

had the opportunity to meet them. Of all the matters which were raised,

there is one specific point which my ministry is now examining, and

that is the statement that the pupil-teacher ratio will exceed the

provincial objective in September of 1984, thereby causing some degree

of hardship. With respect to the item on employment, I have to mention,

with all deference and due respect to those involved, that I don't know

of any other school district in British Columbia that negotiated a

mid-term layoff — in this particular case, in the middle of March. It's

causing some difficulties, I confess, but that's a matter for the

school board and their administration; that's what they're elected to

do.

MR. ROSE: It's a very interesting reply, and I agree that the

PTR is way up in Surrey. The minister is attempting to blame the Surrey

School Board, but he should recall that he is cutting the Surrey School

Board 0.66 percent in the next three years while the expected growth is

over 9 percent. I'd like to ask the minister if he would reconsider.

The board has submitted a detailed brief to the government, and I think

he should meet the school board and give them some kind of indication

of what steps, if any, he intends to implement in order to reduce the

very harsh impact of his policies on education in Surrey and also in

other districts.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to all other districts, there

are a very few which are having some difficulty but are succeeding.

Surrey has advanced one particular problem, because the enrolment is in

fact increasing, probably by about 1,000 between this time and a

similar time next year.

With respect to the budget, the amount being given to Surrey is

100.5 percent of the 1983 amount. That's point number one. In addition

to that amount, when we refer to the actual amount of money advanced to

the district, through the application of other funds as well as local

taxation, the amount of the budget is going to be $93.44 million. The

budget for last year — and I'd like to be sure on this — was $91.383

million. This year the basic budget is $91.874 million plus the

provisions made for phase-in allowance, so it's in excess of $93

million. I don't dispute that there are some difficulties; that's to be

expected in every district. Some are coping, in my view, much better

than others. They've left their brief with me, and we're examining the

brief. As a matter of fact, I raised the matter of PTR in my original

answer. It is alleged to be in excess of 19.1 and is something we're

going to address.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, during question period the Chair

interrupted the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) on a

point of order, and I regret that the minister had not apparently

completed the statement being made in response. If that could be

completed, hon. members, I will address the other point of order as I

indicated.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I had completed my response

to the member for Atlin. What is outstanding is my response to the

member for Victoria. I will do that in question period within the next

few days, or whenever the member for Victoria wishes that response to

be made within question period. I'd be very pleased to bring it back to

the House at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before going to our next point of

business, the Chair must observe that not only are we fixed by rules in

question period, but there is also a spirit of question period. It is

not the intention of the Chair to adversely affect question period by

strictly ruling on the rules that bind us in question period. As I have

stated before, if that were the case, then in effect we would virtually

have no question period. In the same breath, it is incumbent upon both

those members who are asking questions and those members who are

responding to questions to consider the rules that guide us so that we

can effectively carry out the duties that we are engaged upon, to the

best of our ability, bearing in mind the rules which do guide us.

I would commend that the spirit of question period be as important

as the rules that guide us. I thank members for their cooperation in

that undertaking.

MR. HOWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think Your

Honour probably did not deal with the aspect of the point that I had

raised earlier: that is, that if a response to a question raised in

question period and taken on notice is to contain a detailed technical

answer, such as a series of figures, et cetera, such a reply — as the

Chair on another occasion has ruled — should be considered to be in the

nature of a return and so should be made as a return, rather than to

permit the intrusion into question period of a long, detailed series of

technical and statistical information; that isn't the purpose of

question period. That is the point that I raised. If Your Honour would

review that earlier decision of the Chair and draw that to the

attention of members on the treasury benches, we might expedite the

whole process of question period more than we have to date.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is incumbent upon the Chair at

this time to point out that I do not believe a ruling had been made. It

had been advised that that would possibly be the way to go, but a

specific ruling had not been made. That again is something that the

individual member who is either asking the question or responding to

the question — either himself or herself — must take into account.

Possibly it is a matter that should be addressed in another forum. I am

bound by the rules that I have before me. If it is wished that those

rules be changed, then there is a course open to members so to do.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, a number

of ministers have given replies at the conclusion of the question

period — long and detailed replies to long and detailed questions

requiring statistics. This side has not objected to that. Rather than

rule out a minister giving a reply during question period even if the

minister is blatantly or apparently attempting to eat the clock up of

all of question period, I respectfully suggest that the Speaker have

the power to ignore the clock for the time used — which might well have

been used following the question period — and extend the period by that

time.

[ Page 3652 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it

should be noted that today during question period, when my colleague

the Minister of Human Resources stood to reply to that question, there

were no questions on the other side; there were no other members

standing. It's a perfectly good use of question period.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of cooperation

to which you refer, inasmuch as I was the member involved in giving a

response to an oral question, may I just say that in the future, if any

member who is asked a question in this House deems that it will be a

very lengthy answer, perhaps it should be incumbent.... I take the full

responsibility for that. It's incumbent upon me, as the responder to

that member, to say that it will be a very lengthy and detailed

question that would be best put on the order paper, and if you will do

so I will then respond through the order paper. I would be glad to do

that. But you see, when a question is asked within the oral question

period, it seems to me the response should be given in kind. I expect

that's what the opposition wishes of this side of the House, and we are

only trying to be cooperative.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to table the

documents that I used as a basis for forming my questions during this

question period?

[2:30]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who wrote them, John Mika?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Emergency Health Services people, the

Mayor of Powell River, the Fire Chief of Powell River. Big mouth!

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 27: minister's office, $185,567.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, just prior to adjournment at

the lunch hour the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) raised a couple of

matters, including order-in-council appointees. I have the number

within the minister's office, and I assume that's what he wants. One

could hide behind the technicality and say that all orders-in-council

are public. I do not have the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask all hon. members, particularly the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), if we could have some courtesy extended to the minister and

to other members who wish to participate in this committee debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I find it very distracting. If

I am to accurately report on my estimates and participate in the debate

of committee, then I think all members should show courtesy or get the

hell out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good point.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It happens on both sides.

The member asked about the number of appointments by

order-in-council: two executive assistants, the principal secretary, a

second clerk-steno and myself, for a total of five in my office. In the

chaos of starting the committee this afternoon, I indicated that I do

not have the number of order-in-council appointees for the ministry,

which includes the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister. I

don't know if the member wanted that. The number of FTEs within my

office total six, and the number of order-in-council appointments are

five.

My assistant deputy minister will just guide me through some of this

with respect to FTEs in total, because they are broken down by division

of the ministry. The Treasury Board staff would be the first one, which

has 64.3 FTEs budgeted for 1984-85. That's down from 69 in the 1983-84

budget. If the member wants it broken down further, the total ministry

shows 1,097 versus 1,210 in the fiscal year 1983-84 in the estimates

book, page 93. My assistant deputy has provided me with the breakdown

by activity or by division within the ministry. For 1984-85, Treasury

Board, as I indicated, will be 64.3, down from 69. When I say "down,"

that's from the previous fiscal year. In the revenue operations the

number will be 281.6, down from 291.5; the Purchasing Commission ––

83.8, down from 92.5; government agencies –– 291.4 for this year, down

from 327; provincial treasury –– 57.7, down from 60.5; OCG –– 167.3,

down from 180; CSP, the commissioner's office –– 7, down from 7.5. In

percentile terms, Mr. Chairman, that is an overall reduction of 9.3

percent — the 1,097 that I mentioned earlier versus the 1,210 mentioned

again with respect to 1983-84. We're going to meet our full-time

equivalent targets in the ministry primarily through attrition and some

contracting out — but essentially through attrition.

The member also asked about travel. In calendar 1984 I, with my

colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Rogers), led a mission of private and public sector representatives

to India, not exclusively to sell coal, though that was certainly one

of the objectives. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will be able to speak about the

international marketing program, in which I take a great deal of pride

— this was part of that. We had, as I say, a mix of private and public

sector representatives.

Our time was spent exclusively in New Delhi and in Bombay — most of

it in New Delhi. We had about 35 to 40 individual meetings, some with

representatives of the national government and some with

representatives of state agencies or national agencies — we would call

them Crown corporations in the federal context, in the central context.

We also met with a number of private sector people. The composition of

the delegation, I think, suggests the purpose of the trip more

eloquently than I could explain today. When one looks at

representatives from the telecommunications industry, from the

engineering profession in British Columbia, from the forest industry

and so on.... To the best of my recollection the private sector

representatives outnumbered public sector representatives by seven to

five, I think. In other words, the emphasis was on the private sector.

Contracts have already been signed as a result of the trip. Business

prospects for those who participated and those events which flow from

such a visit have been identified, and again I think I would be

[ Page 3653 ]

infringing on the estimates of the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development if I identified the contracts.

This was the first such trade mission in which I have participated.

I found it a very active time. I returned to British Columbia quite

thoroughly aware of the fact that I'd been a considerable distance and

participated in a lot of meetings. If I had any doubts — and I

underline if I had any doubts — as to the merits of the trade mission

program which this government is undertaking, those were erased on the

basis of our meetings in India.

I recall one equivalent to a deputy minister in the national

government saying in effect: "We wonder why we have not done business

with you before. We wonder why we have not had contact with you before.

We wonder why you haven't come to see us before." We did not go, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the member, to undertake borrowing. I know he

said that lightly. Nor did I go with a view to entering into any kind

of loan program, but quite clearly it was, I believe, a very worthwhile

and productive trip.

Other travel activities which I undertook in 1983 included meetings

in Toronto, Montreal and New York. I think the member for Nanaimo and

other members of the committee would know very clearly what those are

all about. It is important to maintain contact with investors and with

potential investors. As an example, at a luncheon meeting in Montreal

one would expect to meet one or two of the senior representatives of

the CN pension plan, Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific

Railway — those people who also have an investor interest in the

province, not those who are simply interested in purchasing our bonds

or debentures.

From time to time I meet in New York with the two major rating

agencies, Moody's and Standard and Poor. There was such a meeting in

the course of 1983; the precise date escapes me. Again in the New York

area I would be expected to — and indeed do — participate in meetings

with insurance companies, with major purchasers of sovereign credit, a

credit such as ours. I travelled in one instance to meet with senior

investment decision-makers of Aetna Insurance, as an example only; that

was in Connecticut. On another occasion, over to Prudential in Newark.

That's the kind of activity which is undertaken on a fairly regular

basis. I believe previous Ministers of Finance have done the same, and

there is nothing particularly out of the ordinary with respect to those

trips.

In the course of making every effort to access long-term and

medium-term money at the best possible rate, we have also accessed the

European-U.S. dollar market and more recently the Euro-Canadian dollar

market. About three years ago I undertook an extensive visit to Europe

to identify those investment bankers who would be most suited to form

the management group. I won't take time on that because that was three

and a half or four years ago. But in 1983 I visited Frankfurt on one

occasion, and London on another, for the same kind of purpose: to

maintain contact with investors and with those who lead our activities,

our issues, in those centres.

Insofar as 1984 is concerned — and I will be brief, Mr. Chairman —

at an appropriate point later in the year I intend to visit Toronto,

Montreal and New York. Indeed, I may well be in Toronto and Montreal

twice for the purposes indicated earlier, and in New York once or

twice. I also propose to visit four or five cities in Europe to meet

with investors and potential investors; that travel is tentatively

scheduled for much later this spring. That will be a 10- or 12-day

visit to London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Zurich and possibly one other

financial centre. Because I have been urged by a number of Japanese

banks and investment firms to go to Japan, later in the year — probably

in the early fall; no date or arrangements have been made — I intend to

visit Tokyo and possibly Hong Kong for the same purposes as indicated

previously.

I've taken quite a while, but that's the general outline of what I

have undertaken and what I propose to undertake.

[2:45]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the ministry has been faced with

several revenue problems, and the revenue shortfall — which hasn't been

characterized just by this year but which has actually been going on

ever since the present Minister of Finance took responsibility for this

portfolio — has led the government to rationalize certain very drastic

cutbacks, not the least of which is the closure of David Thompson

University Centre in Nelson. I would ask the minister if he has looked

at the order-in-council signed in about 1968 which exempted, among

others, the Duncan Dam and the Keenleyside Dam from grants in lieu of

taxation from B.C. Hydro. Over the years the Creston-Caswell School

District 86 has presented some excellent material to government which

shows that at the time certainly some statements were made by ministers

and government and the Premier of the day which would have led any

reasonable person to conclude that they would be taxed, or that there

would be grants in lieu of taxes from B.C. Hydro. Right now, under the

Education (Interim) Finance Act, most of these revenues would in fact

accrue to the Crown; however, one would hope that that is an interim

act and that someday it would revert to the school districts.

I would ask the minister what consideration has been given to

repealing that order-in-council — and that's all it takes — or

modifying it, and also to permitting the local hospital districts to

look forward to that kind of revenue in formulating their plans. It

would really accrue to the regional district of Central Kootenay,

because both of those dams are located within RDCK boundaries, so that

hospital district would see the benefit of that.

A referendum has been conducted by the RDCK, so that these two areas

would be the beneficiaries. A great deal of that would simply go into

provincial government coffers right now, since government does have all

of the industrial and commercial taxation base for school purposes. I

would ask the minister if this is being considered at this time or if

he would give an undertaking to have it looked at in a fresh, new light.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for

Nelson-Creston. This is one of those matters which crosses into other

ministries as well, but I will attempt to provide some information.

No, Mr. Member, I have not examined the orders-in-council of several

years ago to which you refer, although I am aware of their intent.

There is nothing before me at the present time along those lines,

except to say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

and I are prepared to examine the unintentional contradictions which

will be found vis-a-vis Crown corporations paying grants in lieu of

property taxes. It is not necessary for me to identify for the

committee, because it is a matter again of public record, but some do

and some don't. Some do on a certain basis or on

[ Page 3654 ]

certain facilities, and others do not on a

different basis. I think there is a need for a rationalization and a

consistency in that, but I speak of this more in the context of — and

perhaps I am starting to stray here — payments to municipalities. I'm

from the old school in terms of what should actually be presented to

government, and I have no idea as to how the cabinet would respond to

the presentation. To put it simply: we are at the point where we

understand the contradictions which occur — and they've grown up over

many years. This government has, however, made significant progress in

expanding the number of Crown corporation grants in lieu of taxes to

municipalities, but we're not yet finished.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, so that the minister is clear on

this, the interest of the regional district of Central Kootenay is

limited to hospitals, not to funding their recreation programs and

things which are part of local initiatives.

As it does cut across various boundaries — there is something there

for the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health, for the minister

himself, and, I suppose, the Minister of Municipal Affairs — I would

ask the minister if he is amenable to a meeting with the regional

district of Central Kootenay in order to resolve this matter. In the

last general election a referendum was passed — obviously quite

unanimously — in which the question was asked: "Are you in favour of

these dams being fully assessed for hospital purposes?" That referendum

having passed, I would ask if the minister would be amenable to seeing

that such a meeting takes place.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think, candidly, that it would be more

appropriate for that meeting to occur with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who could then call in such colleagues as are appropriate,

whether it is the Minister of Health, the minister responsible for B.C.

Hydro, or whatever. If it is a matter essentially related to, say,

local government, regional hospital district or regional district, then

the meeting would occur first on the initiative of that regional

district with that minister. Would I be amenable to attending the

meeting to hear the problem? Yes, I would, but not without the

concurrence and permission of, in fact, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to take up too much of

the committee's time this afternoon, and I wish briefly to change the

direction of the questioning and bring a new subject to the floor, and

to address the question of the $470 million payment to the British

Columbia Railway for the elimination of the historic debt burden of

that railroad. I do so in this minister's estimates, as the Minister of

Finance is the administrator of the resource revenue stabilization fund

and, in fact, is the fiscal agent for the British Columbia Railway.

A $470 million debt has been retired, a debt of which clearly at

least $200 million was incurred by the construction of the Dease Lake

extension of the BCR. As I said before in the budget debate, and I say

again here this afternoon, I am not really opposed to that move. It was

certainly money well expended, in order to assist this railroad — this

resource railroad — to further open up the northern half of British

Columbia, an area from which comes the lion's share of the provincial

revenue to its coffers. It was money well spent at a time.... In regard

to that particular extension, it may not seem evident today, but

certainly it will in the years ahead prove to be very advantageous to

the north and to this province as a whole, when that branch line will

inevitably be completed and, in fact, pushed even further north.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, through you to the minister, to the

payout, to the retirement of this long-term debt. It has taken an

immense burden from the shoulders of those responsible for the

operation of the BCR, and this will allow them the opportunity to get

on with the job of properly running the railroad without hindrance of

such a burden, which they have done quite well in the last two or three

years, hopefully for the benefit of all British Columbians.

But, Mr. Chairman, having said all that, I would like to ask the

Minister of Finance if, prior to considering the retirement of the BCR

debt, there was any consideration given to directing or at least asking

the board of the Crown corporation to live up to their commitment to

the people living along the northern line of that railroad — in fact,

along the Dease Lake extension northwest of Fort St. James. What that

railroad has done to these people in the last couple of years — and in

fact, they ran a very poor service for two or three years prior to that

— is, in my mind, absolutely unforgivable. We as government are now

retiring a debt, $200 million of which was incurred during the

construction of that extension, and we really have allowed that

railroad to forsake those people and allowed it to shirk its

responsibility, the responsibility it took on when it spent that $470

million and, in this case, the $200 million plus for the Dease Lake

extension.

[3:00]

The people of Takla, only through the good will of the Minister of

Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), are now being provided with a service which

could only be called mediocre, a service which certainly does not meet

the needs of a community of some 300 individuals and which certainly,

as the member representing those people, I cannot accept, especially in

the light of the fact that this government has extended to the board of

directors of the B.C. Railway some $470 million of the taxpayers'

money. Let alone that, it is money that has had to be borrowed by the

people of this province to be able to extend it to that railroad.

I wish to hear the minister's response, and it will probably be that

as fiscal agent and as administrator of the resource revenue

stabilization fund this minister will not be able to answer this

particular question. I'll ask it again in the estimates of the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who

sits on the board of that Crown corporation. But I wish to hear from

the Minister of Finance whether when considering paying off that

historic debt there was any consideration given to asking the board of

directors of the B.C. Railway whether or not they would live up, having

received that $470 million, to their commitment and their

responsibility to provide an acceptable transportation service to the

people of Takla Landing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the member for Omineca. He

anticipated, towards the end of his remarks, the response I would be

obliged to give. I did not want to rise on a point of order; I've not

done so with other members in the course of the debate of these

estimates.

I serve only as the fiscal agent of B.C. Railway, B.C. Hydro, B.C.

Development Corporation and B.C. Ferry Corporation, and I understand

the member's concerns, but it is not appropriate for me to comment on

what direction, if any, has been given to the B.C. Railway board of

directors regarding the operation of that railway. I am obliged to

ensure that

[ Page 3655 ]

its debt is handled in an efficient and correct

manner and that the officers of that company and the other Crown

corporations where I have fiscal agency responsibility are performing

in terms of debt, debt management, sinking funds and all those things

which go with the Ministry of Finance. I've said before, I think, in

previous debates that I'm not responsible for the B.C. Railway, as an

example. Therefore where they construct a branch line, what locomotive,

what mode of power they buy, what service they render or what schedules

they operate on are of.... I won't say of no concern to me, but I have

no responsibility in this chamber for those decisions. There will

obviously be other opportunities for the members to question the

minister responsible, and I would also think the Premier, in terms of

the general policy of the B.C. Railway. But it would be presumptuous of

me to do so.

In terms of making the decision with respect to the $470 million

which is part of a bill before this assembly at the present time, it

would have been most inappropriate — indeed, it would have been

completely out of line — for me to contact the board of directors,

chairman of the board or the president of the railway and say: "This is

what I propose to do. Now what changes are you going to make with

regard to your service?" But I understand the member's concerns. I

regret that since we are looking at the administrative actions of the

Minister of Finance, I'm not in a position to respond.

MR. ROSE: Yesterday the minister was kind enough to say that

he would look up some figures and provide them to me today. What it was

essentially was my difficulty in attempting to reconcile in the

minister's budget the EPF funding increase over last year compared to

the federal Minister of Finance's views in which he stated that B.C.

would get $100 million extra for health this year, and spending only

$49 million on that particular department, and $27 million more EPF for

post-secondary education. So to help me out of my quandary, the

minister agreed to provide me with that information. I wonder if he has

it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, I confess to the committee

and to the member that I do not have that information. It is being

prepared. I undertake to provide the information in writing to that

member, and indeed to any other member of the committee who would care

to have it. I would think that we would have it in a couple of days. It

requires a fairly detailed response. So that is a commitment which I

would honour.

MR. ROSE: In order to assist the minister, I have come to the

conclusion that the difficulty in reconciling the provincial minister's

figures with the federal minister's figures has to do with the

difference between cash flow and estimates based on the entitlement,

which the formula might or might not deliver. But I think that is

essentially where the difference lies. However, if he can enlarge on

this and provide me with the details, I would be grateful. I just want

to make certain that the minister understands me thoroughly, because I

would be interested in having him deny the federal minister if that in

fact is not the truth of the $100 million extra for health and the $27

million extra through EPF for post-secondary education.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I spoke yesterday about that

fact, and I did so quite directly in terms of the additional money

which "was found."

MR. ROSE: Oh, I know that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think we were agreed on that point.

The transfers. This is where I find it complex and requiring very

careful attention, and I therefore suggest that I do not want to rush

into an immediate explanation in the debate of the estimates. That's

why I've undertaken to provide as much information as I possibly can to

the member and other interested members. Quite clearly estimates are

made by the federal government and by the several provinces as to the

amount of money which will flow, and then adjustments occur on an

almost, but not quite, continuing basis. Those adjustments are made for

some years out. I commit to provide that information to the member in

writing within, I would think, the next four to five days.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister. I don't want to prolong this

unduly, but I think the member appreciates the difficulty of a private

member in this area, in that.... Because of the nature of EPF, which is

a combination of a formula having to do with cash transfers with all

the adjustments, plus some tax points thrown in for good measure, it's

very difficult for us to find out in anybody's balance sheet what has

happened. The minister can assert some things, as he did in his budget

statement about how the feds have underfunded and dropped from 50

percent to roughly 43 percent. On the other hand, the federal minister

can come back and say: "No, we've given you all kinds of money." The

question is: whom do you believe? That's the problem.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the contradiction arises in

part from the fact that the recession has lowered the value of our tax

points and has forced the cash up. While it takes other factors into

account, the formula is very much like a seesaw: if one end goes up,

the other goes down. Because of the recession, not only in B.C. but in

other provinces, the value of a tax point diminished; therefore the

dollars generated by tax points decreased. The cash went up. But along

with my provincial counterparts, I am sufficiently confident of the

correctness of the numbers which we have presented regarding

underfunding. I have no hesitation in sharing all of that information

with the members of this House and with the people of British Columbia,

who pay the bill and who are getting....

MR. ROSE: And are paying the other half too.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They're paying the other half too, but on

the provincial side they're getting the short end of the stick. So I

will attempt to assist all interested members in that regard.

MR. BLENCOE: I have some specific questions and perhaps some

discussion for the minister on some of the local concerns that

definitely pertain to his ministry. I'm sure he knows what they are

going to be.

Mr. Minister, as you know, currently this region is suffering some

rather unfortunate employment situations: 16.2 percent unemployment,

which is 18,000 people that we currently know about who are still

looking for work. We know there are many more who have given up or are

on welfare. Unfortunately in the budget you presented there was little

or no mention at all of the current unemployment problem in the

[ Page 3656 ]

greater Victoria area. This area has the

second-highest unemployment rate of any metropolitan area in the

country right now. I'm sure, Mr. Minister, you're seeing them in your

own community office and hearing the plight as well. We are all getting

reports on a daily basis of some real crises happening in our

community. Unfortunately — the minister is here — we have had some

cutbacks in welfare and support programs, etc. We've gone into details,

and I won't do that again. Suffice to say that there are some real

problems; there's a real sickness, particularly in Victoria. Coming

from this area, the minister must be concerned.

Mr. Minister, I'm wondering if you would perhaps comment upon that

predicament in light of the fact that there was virtually no mention of

this particular crisis.... There has been very little indication from

your ministry, and from the government that you are part of, that you

view this as a real social crisis not only in Victoria but in the

province as a whole; or whether, indeed, we can expect from you and

your colleagues some response in the near future to this real

emergency. Yesterday I once again visited St. Andrew's here. There are

200 people visiting there now every single morning, and that's a low

figure. St. Vincent de Paul — on a regular basis, every single day — is

dealing with problems for people who don't have food. I'm not talking

about the traditional people who are unemployed, Mr. Minister. I'm

talking about the new unemployed. Many of them were professional people

and for various reasons, which I won't go into, are.... It's something

they have never had to deal with. This community is a predominantly

professional town. There are some real tragedies. Compounding the

tragedy in terms of unemployment, of course, is the continuing

deterioration in the kind of resources that can help these people in

these difficult times.

[3:15]

I appeal to the minister and again I ask him to comment,

specifically on the Victoria situation of which he is a part, whether

he has heard of the problems and whether he is prepared to recommend

some response to this House and to his colleagues. I'm not necessarily

saying it has to be responded to in terms of public dollars. I have

some further questions in terms of how the response may come,

but...some indication from the minister that at least he feels and sees

this problem, because there is — and I say this sincerely — a feeling

in this area that government is just avoiding this issue and really has

very little thought about it. I would like to hear the Finance minister

in the province of British Columbia respond to this crying need — and

of course I'm referring to Victoria — and then I have some more

questions, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria

will, I trust, understand that in debating my salary it is difficult

for me to respond to the points he has raised. That is not to suggest

that I am unaware, as a native of this community and as a lifelong

resident. I have to give the same response as I did this morning when

the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) raised matters relative to those who

are in financial difficulty. This is the first series of estimates, as

the committee knows. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) will be required to comment on a variety of matters. The

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who would be as concerned about greater Victoria as any

other part of the province, will be called before the committee to

justify his salary. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will

similarly be obliged to respond with respect to the forecasts and the

expectations. My inability to comment must not be misread by that

member or by the committee as a lack of interest. Employment generation

is not within the administrative actions mandated to this portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is very well stated by the minister.

Pages 96 on in the estimates book indicate the administrative

responsibilities the minister has. The minister cannot be responsible

for something that might pertain to his riding, although the Minister

of Finance is responsible to the Legislative Assembly for the capital

region....

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Provincial Capital Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Capital Commission. The rest of

the responsibilities are outlined in the estimates book. We must deal

with that minister's administrative responsibilities.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the finer points of

the protocol. I suppose the minister can indeed call upon the fact that

this doesn't come within the purview of this particular segment, but

the minister is the Minister of Finance, it is probably the major

position in the cabinet, and one of the major problems in this province

— and it is related to Victoria — is unemployment.

May I ask a question, Mr. Minister? You talked about your salary.

How would you address any unemployed person, given that you are a

member of this cabinet and you are in the position as Minister of

Finance to recommend certain kinds of programs that might try to deal

with this problem, if someone who is currently unemployed says to you:

"What are you doing to earn your salary in terms of trying to cope with

the unemployment problems in the province of British Columbia, as the

Minister of Finance?" I happen to believe, Mr. Chairman, that that is a

reasonable question. I don't think the Minister of Finance, through

various technicalities, should not only avoid the question for the

province but also avoid the question for this area....

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing to earn your salary?

MR. BLENCOE: I'm doing it right now. I'm asking some very

important questions about this particular problem. We have a minister

of the Crown — the Minister of Finance — who is refusing, it would

appear, to discuss the whole question of unemployment. I think that's

most unfortunate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point I must remind the hon. member

that there are many ministries' estimates which will come before this

committee which will address specifically, and correctly, the concerns

that the member has. Regrettably, if we look at vote 96, I cannot find

where the Minister of Finance is administratively responsible for the

questions posed by the member who has taken his place in debate now.

Perhaps the member could review the estimates book in its totality and

ascertain which particular portfolios are responsible for which

particular administrative actions. Please proceed.

[ Page 3657 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Tell the 18,000 people, Mr. Chairman, that we've

been told to review the estimates book in terms of the unemployment

problems in this particular region of this province. Really, Mr.

Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hope you're not disagreeing with

what I have just told you, because it is in Sir Erskine May that any

questions dealt with in Committee of Supply estimates must pertain to

the administrative responsibility of the minister. If the member has

concerns that do not reflect this ministry, then it is incumbent upon

him to find out which minister is responsible for the concerns that he

wishes to address.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In this particular context of debating the

estimates of the Ministry of Finance, it is more than protocol and

technicalities which prevent me from responding to the questions which

the member has posed. I would draw the member's attention to the

response which I gave his colleague the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) a short while ago with regard to his asking if I would

arrange a meeting with a regional district. My answer there did not

relate to unemployment; it simply related to the fact that that is

another minister's responsibility, and I would not arrange such a

meeting without the knowledge and concurrence of the minister

responsible — i.e., the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Member,

don't for one moment misread my inability to comment on those questions

you have posed as being a lack of concern.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't have to misread it; the electorate in

this area does.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member interjects that the

electorate in this area misread it. I didn't set the rules for this

committee, nor did the member for Victoria. They are more than

technicalities; they are rules which have governed this Legislative

Assembly for a good long time, sir. I cannot assist the member on that

point in this context.

MR. BLENCOE: Another question, Mr. Chairman, again within the

context of unemployment and the minister's responsibility. The minister

is responsible, or would be, for allocating funds for particular

projects in a particular area. One of them which might indeed start to

deal with the current problems in this region would be the whole

question of convention centre funding. I know that has come up before

in this House, and the question has come to you by my predecessor, I

believe, Mr. Minister. Could you perhaps let the House know whether

indeed you see it in the near future, or whether this government will

participate in the whole question of a local convention centre in

Victoria now that a site has been decided upon and all the parties are

agreed and the council is unanimous? It is now just a matter of some

support from various sectors, particularly, of course, the provincial

government. Is the minister prepared to discuss that particular item in

the light of much-needed jobs and of course a facility which would

bring people here all year round and create much needed employment on a

regular basis? Hopefully that's within the purview of the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, one of the responsibilities I

do carry is for the Provincial Capital Commission. That is a vote

contained in this grouping of estimates. No recent proposal for a

convention centre is presently before me in that capacity. I know that

work has been undertaken within the city of Victoria, in particular

with a couple of aldermen who are now serving in the city of Victoria.

I know that the Provincial Capital Commission is interested in a

convention centre. It's hindsight, but nonetheless it has to be part of

the recent history of the convention centre that we were prepared to

proceed, pre-recession, with a proposal which was found, for valid

reasons or not, to be unacceptable in terms of site.

MR. BLENCOE: You withdrew the funding on that one.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, the member may or may not recall that

we even broke ground at the site and would have been prepared....

MR. BLENCOE: But you later withdrew the funding.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The fact is that that particular project on

that particular site was deader than a doornail, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: It passed through council.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I can't hear all the interjections.

I trust that all those who are interested in a convention centre,

which would relate to the Provincial Capital Commission, i.e., in the

precinct area where the Provincial Capital Commission would want to be

involved.... I would hope that a proposal would come forward. I can't

commit dollars today, but certainly one needs only to examine the

visitors to the capital region this week to know that we do need a

convention centre. If it in any way involves the PCC, for which I have

the responsibility, then I'm certainly going to do what I can with my

cabinet colleagues, but until this time it's rather hypothetical.

MR. BLENCOE: Somewhat hypothetical, but the fact of the

matter is, Mr. Minister, that there is a convention centre being drawn

up — I think the plans are even finished, if I recall — and it's just a

matter now of bringing it forward. There is no question that it's going

to come forward. I'm asking you today what, when that proposal does

come forward in the very near future, is going to be....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The funding for that other one was withdrawn. I

would remind the minister that despite objections the vote did go

through with a majority of the council, and that proposal was to be

built on the Reid site. It was the government withdrawal of funding for

that particular project, and the record does speak to that.... But

anyway, now we're looking at the positive side. We've got a site, we've

got the Empress or the CPR participating, and all those things — we're

ready to go. If the proposal goes in — and it's going to come in, Mr.

Minister — how do you think the government's going to look on it? Are

we in Victoria finally going to get a convention centre, and do you

think and believe that the government will look favourably on financial

support?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the event that a proposal comes to me

through the Provincial Capital Commission, which is the only way in

which I would have responsibility, then I

[ Page 3658 ]

would certainly hope that it could be looked upon

favourably. But I have no such proposal in front of me, and we in this

region — speaking of the Provincial Capital Commission and its

predecessor organization, the CIDC — have been up to the trough a good

number of times with respect to a convention centre and for one reason

or another we have backed away. I can only speak to the convention

centre in the event that it involves the Provincial Capital Commission.

I don't have a proposal. I hope I receive a proposal. I hope that by

saying, "I hope I receive a proposal," the member will take some heart.

I cannot give him a commitment, but I can give him some encouragement.

[3:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the minister for that response.

A third issue I wish to raise is the whole question of the economy,

which I believe the minister can respond on, being the Minister of

Finance. Some time ago I indicated that I felt there should be some

public hearings vis-à-vis the provincial budget and the provincial

economy. I know the minister has been holding meetings with various

groups in the province, but thus far they have not been held in a

public fashion but have been of a private nature. I suggested to both

sides of the House that maybe one of the things we should be doing,

given the state of the economy and the fiscal concerns and problems

this province is facing, is consulting publicly and directly with many

of the various interest groups — chambers of commerce, labour councils,

chartered accountants — numerous groups on whom your ministry's

decisions and policy have an impact. There should be a public dialogue

on fiscal priorities and budget considerations, and there should be

some consideration of a bipartisan kind of approach to that kind of

economic public hearing across the province. I indicated that I thought

it might be a very healthy process, in terms of bipartisan approach,

given the deep polarization that exists in this province — I think we

all admit it, and there are some reasons for it. I suggested that

perhaps there could be some mechanism whereby both sides of the House

could be afforded the opportunity, sponsored if you like by the

Ministry of Finance, for some public hearings going directly to those

ordinary citizens and people representing various institutions and

organizations across the province who are directly affected by the

budget, and discussing the budget implications and publicly tapping

that resource of expertise out there in the direction this province

should go in the next five or ten years in terms of its economic

priorities. Perhaps because the government has some serious problems

and this province is in some trouble — I'll try not to overstate the

case, Mr. Minister, but maybe this is the worst economic time since the

Depression — it should consult directly, in a public fashion, with the

people of British Columbia and the institutions that make this province

tick. Have a frank and open dialogue on where we're going in the

province of British Columbia; try to develop a strategy on economic

direction with the province and the government of British Columbia, and

really look at some ideas that might flow from that public discussion.

Indeed, there was some initial support for that concept from some

back-benchers on the government side. I unfortunately did not hear from

any cabinet ministers on that particular concept.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Given the feeling in the province pro and con about what's happening

in terms of economic and budget direction, Mr. Minister — there's no

question that it's controversial, and many people both in business and

in other areas feel there is something wrong, that there needs to be an

open and frank dialogue on what should be happening in terms of fiscal

priorities and budget considerations — what would hinder the minister

from entering into that public dialogue? I was hoping it could happen

before this budget came down, but perhaps it can happen in the next six

months. Try to see if there is any way this government, along with this

side of the House, could achieve some bipartisan conclusions on the

direction of the province of British Columbia in terms of economic and

fiscal priorities to eradicate some of the deep polarization that does

exist in the province of British Columbia. If we search ourselves, I

think we'll all admit that that does exist, and in the long term it

cannot be in the best interest of British Columbians.

That again may not be within the purview of what you can discuss,

Mr. Minister, but I think it's something that's in the interest of

British Columbians for you to comment upon. I know you'll probably say

that you've met quietly, but I think there is an opportunity here for

an exciting public dialogue if the government and this side of the

House is prepared to consult and discuss with the people and learned

institutions in terms of how the economy should run, and maybe we'll

find some common conclusions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have to observe at the

outset that yes, I've heard of the member's proposal for a bipartisan

study of economic affairs in British Columbia. I read about it in the

press before I received his letter asking that we have this kind of

dialogue; it was released before I received it. So much for a

bipartisan approach.

The meetings which I held, and which I refer to on page 5 of the

budget speech, were — if one wants to use the adjective — "closed."

Yes, they were closed, but they were extremely varied: all the way from

the Education Coalition to the British Columbia Employers' Council to

the British Columbia Federation of Labour — some 18 groups or so over a

good number of weeks. At or towards the conclusion of each meeting I

made it very clear that unlike some other meetings which may occur with

ministers of finance or treasurers, the groups who made presentations

and entered into discussion were completely free, insofar as I was

concerned, to say: "It was a good meeting; it was a bad meeting; this

is what we suggested; this is what the minister and his officials

responded to or did not respond to." I want to do more of that, and I

indicated on February 20 and in subsequent discussion that I would like

to start that probably in August. We started a little later than I

would otherwise have wished, and I want not only to move that out of

Victoria and Vancouver exclusively, but to move it to other centres in

the province.

In advancing the view of public meetings — public hearings, I think

he said — the member would perhaps not recall, inasmuch as he was not

in this House at the time, that on the matter of property tax reform my

colleague the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and I held 14 public

meetings in all parts of the province. They were open-ended meetings.

In other words, if they started at 9:30, we didn't say that they must

conclude at 12 noon or 1:30. They ended when everyone who was present

had completed their submission. Those meetings were open to all,

including members of this Legislative Assembly. Some members attended

when the meeting was

[ Page 3659 ]

scheduled in their area; some did not for, I'm

sure, very valid reasons. Those were open meetings in the larger

centres covered by the media, in small centres probably not, and out of

that came a very useful series of conclusions which led to legislation

which is now before the House. In terms of the public-hearing process,

public meetings, receiving submissions from those who are favourable to

this government or not favourable to this government on matters which

are within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance, I have

absolutely no problem with ensuring that myself and officials are

available for the kind of public meeting which the member has spoken of.

There is another avenue open which may have occurred to the member,

and that is that should this House — not the committee, but the House —

at some point consider that it wants to refer a particular aspect of

the economy, it may, not at my bidding but if that is its wish, refer a

matter to the Select Standing Committee onPublic Accounts and Economic

Affairs. That opportunity exists, again, for the House; it is not for

me to say yea or nay with respect to that. The consultative process

which I have outlined within the responsibility of the Ministry of

Finance has proven extremely successful. We don't pretend to have all

the answers in the ministry. Therefore the member will see that I am

expanding that consultative process starting, as I indicated, in the

middle of this calendar year.

MR. DAVIS: I want to raise a few topics, and I would like to

hear the minister's answer. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that they

fall within the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance.

Increased taxation. Most state administrations in the United States

have had to increase taxes as well as expenditures over the last year

or two. British Columbia similarly, in its determination to balance its

budget, has had both to increase taxation and reduce expenses. On the

increased taxation side, we have a new health care maintenance surtax.

It adds 8 percent in a full year to the personal income tax paid by

British Columbians. It will put us up to roughly the Canadian average

for personal income tax. Formerly we were halfway between Alberta and

Ontario. From now on our personal income tax rates will be comparable

to those of Ontario.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me for interrupting, hon. member, but I

am sure that the hon. member is aware of the rule regarding

anticipation. The hon. member is referring to a bill which is yet to be

brought forward in this House.

MR. DAVIS: I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman, but I am

concerned about the minister's intention to go to Ottawa and request

additional payments from the federal treasury which, were they to be

forthcoming, would obviate the need for that legislation for that tax.

What I am concerned about, really, is the expectation of relief from

Ottawa. I don't think there is any relief likely to be forthcoming. I

believe that this is a fond hope. I see it as a virtual impossibility

if the Progressive Conservatives form the government within the next 12

to 18 months and have any intention whatsoever of reducing that $30

billion deficit. There is no way in the world that a Progressive

Conservative government is going to make the kinds of moneys available

of the order the minister states — $300 million to $400 million

additional for British Columbia.

The history of health care legislation in this country, of support

for education, of support for welfare recipients, was that the federal

government eventually became involved. Those are areas of basically

provincial responsibility. The federal government became involved and

instituted programs financed initially on a fifty-fifty basis.

Fifty-fifty's great for the rich provinces; it's more difficult for the

poorer provinces. The result of open-ended programs where Ottawa was

prepared to put up 50 cents for every dollar the province spent was

that the rich provinces could run ahead of the poor provinces. They had

50-cent dollars to spend; why not spend more? British Columbia pays

doctors more than anyone else. British Columbia has more doctors per

capita than anyone else. There is no way in which a federal government

concerned about spreading the wealth in this country is going to revive

a fifty-fifty sharing program in any of these areas, which are areas of

basically provincial responsibility. So I don't think there's a hope in

the world of $364 million or any portion thereof suddenly becoming

available from Ottawa. I think the block funding kind of support that's

available to provinces will be continued, perhaps at a diminished rate

by a future government — certainly any government that's concerned with

reducing the federal deficit. So I think that tax, to the extent that

it's absolutely necessary to balance the provincial budget, is a

permanent tax. It's not a temporary tax; it's not an interim tax.

[3:45]

There's a second tax, the tax that will presumably offset the

abolition of user fees in our hospitals. I don't understand what that

tax will be. I regret the elimination of user fees. I think user fees

have a useful function to perform. I think that for those who can

afford to pay, user fees are a discipline which prevents precocious use

of services which are admittedly expensive. Those on welfare, those who

can't afford to pay, naturally would not have to pay those user fees,

but they haven't had to pay them anyway in this province. I think

that's a retrograde step. My reading of the situation is that British

Columbia, to put it crudely, has caved in; it's going to eliminate user

fees, and it's going to do so because this is an all-party position in

Ottawa — the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP want user fees

eliminated. The moneys they'll make available to the provinces continue

contingent on the elimination of user fees. So user fees, presumably,

are gone.

I'd like to hear the Minister of Finance comment on his expectations

of increased money from the federal treasury with respect to any of the

people programs, certainly including health care in the next few years.

As I've said, I think it's a fond hope. He can try, but obviously

provinces have been trying to increase those payments from the very

beginning. Ottawa began to cut back in the early seventies, has been

cutting back consistently since, and as I've said, with its budget

deficit it has no alternative, as I see it.

There have been quite a few questions asked about B.C. Rail. I think

I can understand the removal of the historic debt of B.C. Rail from the

shoulders of the corporation. I believe that is desirable. As I

understand it, the government substantially will have to borrow some

$470 million out of this year's budget and give it to B.C. Rail; B.C.

Rail puts it in the bank and then, over time, pays off its historic

debt as it matures. Substantially B.C. Rail, from this year on, will be

debt-free, as far as its historic obligations are concerned. Of course,

the hope is that it will be able to meet its current operating costs —

maintenance, salaries, fuel costs and so on — out of its current

revenue. That course was recommended by a royal

[ Page 3660 ]

commission; it was recommended by our House

Committee on Crown

Corporations, and so on. I've no quarrel with that development. What

does concern me is the manner in which the moneys are administered for

what I'll call the Tumbler Ridge extension. As I understand it, and

perhaps the minister will correct me, those moneys have been put out;

substantially they've been spent. They're put up as equity. B.C. Rail,

in other words, will not have an interest-bearing obligation; it does

not incur a debt to the extent of this new facility which it takes

over. Whether it owns it or not, I'm not quite clear, but certainly it

manages it. It runs it as if it's a facility of its very own, but B.C.

Rail is not obliged to raise any money to pay for the capital costs

involved. Assuming the capital costs have been of the order of $500

million or $600 million, there's obviously interest accumulating — an

interest obligation of the order of $60 million to $70 million a year

on top of what has already been spent. The income from the rail

surcharge for the next few years is limited to $1 per tonne. So if five

million tonnes move, there's $5 million income, and that's all there

is. If ten million tonnes move, there's $10 million income. But the

interest on that money is $60-$70 million. So I would like to hear from

the minister whether there is going to be some separate account;

whether we're going to be able to understand not only how this

extension was financed, but basically how equity participation by the

people of the province works out.

I'm one of those who believes that the tonnages moving over that

line will increase substantially over the decades — not immediately but

over the longer term. I also know that after the first five years, the

special surcharge jumps to $4 a tonne. So one way and another the

income can rise toward the interest due on the investment of the

Tumbler Ridge line. But basically my intervention here is asking if

this is a separate account of sorts. Is this an account which is

defined within the ministry? Is it an account which we will learn about

sooner rather than later?

I would like to know about the equity account of B.C. Rail, partly

because of light rapid transit. Light rapid transit is incurring a debt

as a result of provincial borrowings of a similar order of magnitude.

Under another estimate I will want to get some idea as to how the

province, which in that case shares the responsibilities with the

municipalities, will be able to meet the carrying charges and over the

longer term pay off the investment. The question I have regarding B.C.

Rail is: is there an equity account? Can it be identified? In the next

year will we be able to learn more about its income and outgo?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question on the

taxation of industry in the province. The minister has said that during

the course of the next 12 months — hopefully during the summer — he

will be meeting with delegations from various industries and asking

them whether they think B.C. taxation is fair or whether it can be

improved upon in one way or another. The story he will hear, I think

almost universally, is that British Columbia has the highest taxes in

Canada on industry.

Our corporation general taxes are the highest in the country. The

Price, Waterhouse report on the mining industry indicated our taxation

is the highest in Canada. We've got a capital tax that I believe should

have been eliminated long since. There are a few other miscellaneous

taxes. I've been griping about a relatively recent bunker fuel tax.

Those kinds of taxes don't help, they don't create jobs, and I believe

they're self-defeating in that they actually reduce the revenue

potentially available for the Crown. The minister is going to hear a

lot from industry. I hope he is listening, and I hope he intends to

listen. I hope he'll see several groups regarding the bunker fuel tax.

I hope there are ways, due to an improvement in the fortunes of the

province in a few years, that he'll be able to cut taxation. When that

happy day arrives, I hope he will reduce the corporation general tax,

at least to the level of Ontario, get the mining tax down to some

Canadian norm, eliminate the capital tax and do away with nonsense

taxes like the new bunker fuel tax.

One final question. Right now there is a lot of concern

internationally about a new tax referred to as the "unitary tax."

California is imposing it; several other states in the Unites States

are imposing it. It amounts to a tax on the global operations of any

company doing business in the jurisdiction — in that case, the state.

How they do this defeats me; nevertheless, the tax authorities in

California come up with a figure. Let's say that 5 percent of all the

business that Sony does in the world is done in the state of

California. Therefore the state of California will tax Sony 5 percent

of their corporation income, or tax off 5 percent of their corporation

income. Imagine British Columbia putting a percentage tax, whether it's

1, 2 or 3 percent, on General Motors or Toyota. The unitary tax, I

think, will really drive business away from some of these

jurisdictions. I would like to ask whether the province has given any

thought to this tax. Have officials in the ministry taken a look at the

unitary tax? Can they describe it? Can the minister describe it at

some time in the next few months and see whether it makes any sense for

us?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In reverse order, I think. The unitary tax,

as in some states in the United States.... Yes, I have a passing

knowledge of it. I could not speak at length on it, and I know that

officials in the ministry are more aware of it. I can assure the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour that it's not something that is being

developed as a proposal within the province of British Columbia. Quite

the contrary, because at a number of meetings of federal and provincial

Ministers of Finance B.C. has advanced the theory of tax harmonization,

an easy and good-sounding phrase. We haven't made much progress on it

yet, but I certainly intend to continue to pursue that kind of tax

harmony across the country to, in effect, move in the opposite

direction to the unitary tax which the member has described.

We have no bill before the House with respect to bunker fuel, and I

can speak about that. The member and I have had disagreements with

respect to bunker fuel. I have an open mind on the issue, and I know

that there are those who will want to speak to me about it and meet

with the Ministry of Finance officials and me in the course of the

year. I reaffirm today my willingness to meet with them to hear their

presentation and review their statistics, and then to attempt to make

the best decision in the interests of the province. Up to this point —

and the member and I have exchanged correspondence on this over the

last some months — I have an open mind. It would be completely out of

order for me to suggest that I can commit to making a change now, but I

will certainly receive those presentations in a completely forthright

and open-minded way.

The whole question of the tax burden in B.C. was referred to in the

budget speech. The member indicated that in his remarks. He has

outlined for me his view of that, Mr. Chairman, which will be the

points which will be made, and I will ensure that individuals in the

ministry and I are available.

[ Page 3661 ]

I suppose that I would approach that knowing there will be an

element of enlightened self-interest, but nonetheless I think that the

process is going to be very productive for industry, the province, the

people who seek employment in the province, those who are presently

unemployed and those who want to see their children and grandchildren

gainfully and usefully employed in the years and decades to come.

There are areas of the tax burden which do cast B.C. in a somewhat

unfavourable light: that is, if one speaks only of the tax burden. But

I would like to think — in fact I am convinced — that the budget which

was debated in the last two weeks, ending last Friday, is a move toward

making this province more attractive for industry and business in the

province and country, which will automatically provide more employment

opportunities. Would that the federal government were following the

same general course of action instead of throwing money, which it owes

and doesn't have, at problems — particularly in Liberal ridings, I am

informed, but I do not know for sure. Without any element of

boastfulness whatsoever, I would say that I earnestly believe that

because our problem was so serious and severe, and happened so

dramatically, and because we took steps early on to correct it, other

provinces will, in the course of time, find it appropriate to do that

which we have done. That was why I concluded with that observation in

the budget speech. We may be pioneering in B.C. We did so out of

necessity, but frequently pioneers do certain things out of necessity,

Mr. Member.

The meetings of which the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)

and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour spoke, and which I intend to

hold, will start in mid-summer and certainly go on into the fall. I

don't suggest that there are going to be meetings every week, but there

will be a series of meetings, which will be most illuminating to the

government.

[4:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The member spoke about B.C. Rail at some length. Tumbler Ridge will

be dealt with separately, Mr. Chairman. As part of the answer to that,

I would refer to page 7 of the budget speech. But in addition, the BCR

will be expected to pay the annual costs of the long-term financing of

the Tumbler Ridge line. This is a change from the previous intention,

which was that the government would pay for the Tumbler Ridge line, and

that was in note 4 of the BCR financial statements. We're satisfied

that the BCR can meet the annual costs of the Tumbler Ridge branch

line. This is a little more onerous for the railway, but the operating

results indicate that it can meet the costs and it will be dealt with

separately. There's no question about that.

The increased people programs — health and so on — I did speak about

in the course of the debate on the estimates, and I would be happier

dealing with that when we debate one of the bills before the House.

Vote 27 approved.

Vote 28: government financial support, $57,619,011 — approved.

Vote 29: Provincial Capital Commission, $256,500 — approved.

Vote 30: compensation stabilization program, $798,725 — approved.

Vote 77: interest on the public debt, $237,600,000 — approved.

Vote 78: contingencies (all ministries), $50,000,000 — approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I call vote 5, $190,978, the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, minister's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. There is a point of order

by the member for Mackenzie.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking as the

Deputy Whip now, since the Whip is not present. It was our

understanding that the next estimate to be called before this House

this afternoon was to be the Ministry of Human Resources. I expect the

government, for once in its life, to keep its word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the rudeness

of the member opposite....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Rude nothing! I keep my word. Do you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Subject to the availability of

ministers.... However, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the enlightened

comment from the member for Mackenzie, without the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) being in the chamber, we shall call,

rather than vote 5, the vote of the Minister of Human Resources.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 39: minister's office, $208,514.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's my great pleasure to appear before

you and fellow members of the Legislature to discuss our ministry's

estimates and what I really believe is a very responsible approach to

serving the British Columbians who are in need.

Before I focus on individual program and policy initiatives for

1984-85, I would like to discuss my ministry from a broader

perspective. As you are aware, the basic objective guiding ministry

activities is the principle of assisting needy British Columbians. The

nature and degree of that assistance are necessarily affected by

fluctuations in the economy and by our ability to pay. When economic

times are favourable, unemployment levels and the attendant need for

income assistance are reduced. Of course, the opposite is true during

less favourable times when economic times make it imperative to ensure

that our limited resources are directed to assisting those in need.

Seventy-five percent of clients are independent within the first

eight months of coming to us on income assistance — taking welfare.

Despite recession-caused increases in the

[ Page 3662 ]

numbers of persons requiring income assistance over

the past two

years, our ministry has continued to relieve poverty and promote client

self-reliance at the same time. I emphasized this in last year's budget

discussions, and it bears repeating: even in less favourable economic

times, an impressive 76 percent of our clients usually become income

independent and are on their own without help from the government and

without help from the taxpayer within eight months of first receiving

financial assistance.

Because our clients are motivated to work, continued emphasis has

been placed on my ministry's Individual Opportunity Plan, which

enhances client employability by providing career counselling,

vocational training and upgrading, on-the-job work experience and

training in job research techniques. During the past fiscal year

approximately 7,700 clients per month participated in the individual

opportunity plan, at a cost of $4.7 million. One of the most successful

initiatives operating under the Individual Opportunity Plan is the job

action program. This program trains people in job search and interview

techniques and helps people gain a realistic view of their own value to

an employer. During more prosperous times almost 80 percent of

participants found employment after completing the job action program.

Even with the current less favourable economic situation, approximately

158 clients per month took

part in the program and about 48 percent of

them subsequently became self-sufficient. In 1984-85 we hope to

increase opportunities for participation, and to do so, more dollars

will be directed towards the job action program.

Client employability is also enhanced under the Individual

Opportunity Plan through on-the-job experience provided under the work

activity and incentive programs, as well as under the employment

training program jointly operated with the Ministry of Labour. I was

particularly pleased that in the last 10 days the Ministry of Labour

announced some job initiatives for students and young people within our

province. We have had a good working relationship with that ministry

and we will have more in terms of the kind of joint programs that we

can have for our people on income assistance. To specifically encourage

recipients of GAIN for the handicapped — those recipients who obtain

benefits to obtain work experience and progress towards independence —

almost $1 million will be directed toward a new incentive allowance for

employment program in '84-85. An allowance of up to $50 per month will

be provided to handicapped persons who participate under this program.

Many members of this House will recall that this is a replacement for

the CIP which we all had hoped to restore in 1984-85. I'm pleased to

tell you that it is being restored in this new budget.

In the areas of child protection and family services, basic programs

are continuing to operate as usual. The Helpline for children operates

24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure that children, parents and

concerned others have access to help. Information and advice in

suspected incidents of child abuse are all recorded and assisted by our

people — over 900 social workers throughout the province.

Other basic programs and services for children which continue

unchanged include the infant development program, which helps children

develop in skill areas where they are experiencing significant

difficulties and delays; Chance, which provides personal care services

within schools to disabled children, is also going on apace; and child

day care, residential and foster care programs are all part of our

basic program and services, which are continued without any change at

all.

As you are probably aware, Mr. Chairman, most of the child-care

programs available to our clients are provided by my ministry through

purchase of services from various societies. While we've been directly

operating only 22 child-care resources, we purchase the services of

nearly 600 child-care resources. In the coming year the 22 that we have

managed directly will be phased out; my ministry is getting out of the

business of operating these resources. By decentralizing services,

children and families can have assistance closer to their own homes. By

purchasing services from societies, local communities can become more

actively involved in promoting the welfare of their residents,

particularly those residents who need special help.

Our primary concern, protection of British Columbia's children, is

best ensured through the caring involvement of every community. In this

regard I'm pleased to advise you that many well-established societies

have already come forward to express their interest in assuming

responsibility for the remaining 22 child-care resources that have been

operated in the past by my ministry. With this high degree of support,

I can assure you that the quality services will continue to be provided

to children and families in need.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to describe briefly the wide range of

programs and services of my ministry to senior citizens. In 1983-84 we

assisted with the cost of approximately 330,000 medical prescriptions

for our seniors under the Pharmacare program, 9,800 seniors received

financial assistance for rent under the Safer program, and 34,000

travelled with bus passes provided under the bus-pass program.

Potentially, 320,000 seniors are eligible for our counselling services.

The GAIN for seniors supplement is available to those whose monthly

income from all sources is less than the provincial guaranteed minimum

level. Despite partisan comments to the contrary, I wish to confirm

that the increase in the GIS levels recently announced by the federal

government will, as always, under this Social Credit government, be

passed along to the 49,000 senior citizens in British Columbia who are

recipients of our GAIN for seniors supplement.

[4:15]

Overall, Pharmacare programs will continue to serve the medication

needs of British Columbians, including the seniors. In 1984-85 emphasis

will be placed on limiting pharmaceutical expenditures. First, British

Columbia's pharmacists have been asked to help play their part and a

key role by altering allowable dispensing fee charges. Serious

negotiations are currently in progress with the Pharmacists Society

regarding acceptable methods for affecting a pause in dispensing fee

increases. May I pay tribute at this point in time to the tremendous

cooperation that we get from that society and always have done in these

years in which I have had the opportunity to lead this ministry.

The second change affects the universal Pharmacare program only —

the universal part. While drug costs have risen dramatically, there has

been only one increase in this program's annual deduction level since

1977. Increasing the deductible from $125 to $175 per year will reduce

the cost to the taxpayer by an estimated $4 million. While continuing

to meet the program's objective of protecting British Columbians who

have excessive drug costs and medication needs, I point out that this

increase in the deduction level since 1977 remains below the CPI level

for that same period.

[ Page 3663 ]

And now I would really like to talk about services to the mentally

retarded. In the area of services to the mentally disabled, I am proud

to tell you that we are providing leadership in North America for

moving these citizens out of institutions and back into their own

communities so that they can lead as normal a life as possible. As I

mentioned in last year's budget discussions, this government has

stepped up development of community resources in preparation for

reducing institutional capacity and expanding community-based

resources. By December 31, 1984 — this year — our institutional

population will be reduced by 25 percent with the closure of

Tranquille. The Ministry of Human Resources supports a number of

services and resources in communities to meet the needs of the retarded

such as residential programs operated by non-profit societies,

proprietary boarding homes, semi-independent living homes, supervised

apartment living, vocational training centres, self-help programs which

assist people with self-care, community and home management skills. In

addition, many communities have achievement centres offering day

programs to assist retarded people in developing or improving their

social and work skills. These sorts of resources and services provide

the key to successfully normalizing the lives of our mentally retarded

citizens.

In the preparation for the closing of Tranquille much activity is

underway. Project staff throughout the province are planning networks

of community resources. Staff are also assisting societies and

individuals to develop needed resources. Meetings are continuing among

parents, among project staff, societies and concerned others, not the

least of which are city councils, to ensure the best possible placement

for each individual. Also my ministry has continued to meet with other

ministries such as Education, Lands, Parks and Housing and Health and

with community groups to ensure that there is a coordinated and

integrated approach to service deliverance.

Community placements have begun to occur. A majority of placements

are scheduled for the period of April to September, and the remainder

will take place in the fall. In this regard I'd like to mention a

letter that I have just received recently where there was a bit of

criticism over the so-called haste to depopulize Tranquille, or to

close it down. It was written by a mother to a Kamloops newspaper, and

she was taking exception to a writer who said that it was done in too

much haste, that it should take a few years longer, etc. She pointed

out the difference between a mentally disabled person waking up to have

breakfast in a personal residential boarding home and waking up in an

institution. As she said, there was absolutely no comparison. If I can

find that letter and share it with you, I think you will well

understand the concerns of the parents of a mentally retarded person

and how much it means to them, and how right the policy seems when you

read of a mother who has that care and who wonders, too, what will

happen to that child after the parents perhaps pass away. So we do

believe that our policy of decentralization and community-based

resources is the right one, and we think this is the start of a very

good era — and again I say we are leading North America in this regard.

Although there are signs of economic recovery, the number of British

Columbians requiring income assistance increased in 1983-84, and

expectations are that perhaps the current high level will continue in

1984-85. At the same time, recognizing that government resources are

limited, the budget for 1984-85 has been reduced to 98 percent of the

previous year's budget. Savings therefore must be effected through

program modifications. As I mentioned earlier, a majority of our

clients use income assistance for short-term need while they pursue

independence. Because of current economic conditions it now takes

longer for people to find employment — up to eight months. So the

period for short-term assistance has also been extended to eight

months. Similarly, earning exemptions — that is, $50 for singles and

$100 for families — will be allowed only after the first eight months

of income assistance, yet another change that has been made in this

year.

To protect the clients who are least able to help themselves — that

is, families with children, the handicapped and the elderly — major

program changes have been directed to those clients who potentially

have alternate resources available. Based on this concern, and keeping

in mind the fact that approximately 37 percent of singles and couples

are off income assistance in the first month — that is, single people

or couples without children go off income assistance in the first month

— benefits will be reduced by $50 per month to that group only for the

first month. If short-term assistance is still required beyond the

first month, clients 25 years of age and younger who have no children

will receive a $25 per month increase during the next seven months.

That level represents a $25 per month reduction from current benefit

levels during that period. Because CEIC has reduced the waiting period

for unemployment insurance and because unemployment insurance benefits

are retroactive, persons awaiting those benefits will no longer be

considered eligible for regular income assistance. Savings realized

from these changes, Mr. Chairman, will be used to protect those least

able to help themselves from the full impact of the recession.

One additional change concerns the support for British Columbia's

children. At present approximately 37 percent of our ministry's budget

for GAIN benefits is directed to single parents. To protect the

children and contribute to the financial independence of these single

parents, my ministry will commence the implementation of an improved

system for obtaining and enforcing maintenance orders. Support of

children is the responsibility of both parents, and we will ensure that

that responsibility is taken.

I would like to say that I'm pleased to see that my deputy minister,

Mr. John Noble, who so ably leads our ministry and a staff of over

5,000 people, is with me today. I also am pleased to tell you that the

director in charge of our budget, Mr. Jim Davis, is with me as well,

and I look forward to a very constructive debate on the estimates of

probably the most important — and without all of my colleagues here,

I'd say the most important — ministry in this government. Mr. Chairman,

I look forward to the questions.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased once again to have an

opportunity to review the initiatives taken by the Minister of Human

Resources since we started this session, but I am not as optimistic

about the state of affairs within the ministry as appears to be the

indication from the remarks just made by the minister. You know, we've

been under considerable stress and pressure really, even more than

since the last election. Before May 5 we were hearing rumours about

things to come with respect to restraint and polling of the public to

get information respecting the campaign, and we know that there was a

plan that would be implemented by the government if it were successful

last May 5. In less than a year we've gone through two budgets. I faced

this minister

[ Page 3664 ]

briefly last fall regarding the ministry's role as

a humanitarian

agency of the public. We've hardly had time to really reflect on what

has happened. I agree with the minister that we should have

constructive debate, especially when it comes to the Ministry of Human

Resources, because no one can really enjoy having to make political hay

out of the human tragedy and concerns of that group of the public, who,

through circumstances perhaps not of their own making, find themselves

in need of assistance, be it temporary or permanent, or whatever their

requirements may be. We also know that any person in our community may

require such assistance at any time.

Where are we really in the Ministry of Human Resources? The ministry

is one of the largest, most expensive and perhaps most complicated

ministries. I certainly do not wish to suggest that the minister is

insensitive, although, and I'm sure she appreciates this, some of the

comments by the public indicate considerable dissatisfaction with the

way the minister makes decisions with respect to programs for the

public.

I have a lot of questions that I would like to get to, and I think

they will require cooperation and understanding. Unfortunately, when we

get into philosophic debates, it gets pretty complicated and no one

knows quite how to come to conclusions. I want to give the minister the

opportunity to set the record straight with respect to the thrust of

her ministry. She has indicated, with some satisfaction, that 25-odd

million dollars have been reduced from her budget, down from some $2.38

million last year — about a 6 percent reduction, I believe. In any

event, Mr. Chairman, we are in a state of affairs that gives cause for

concern.

[4:30]

The minister suggests that the numbers of persons requiring social

assistance is on the increase and that since the fiscal year of 1981 to

the present time the figure has more than doubled. She suggests the

figure is in the neighbourhood of 113,000 people. That figure is

probably not reflective of the true numbers, because those are probably

single individuals that she is speaking of. If you were to consider

that there may be a child, a husband or any number of people in that

family, we are looking at something in the neighbourhood of 245,000 or

250,000 people on social assistance, not counting the people who don't

qualify or for some reason are unable to be counted in these figures. I

can appreciate that the numbers are staggering and that they're on the

increase.

What is the purpose of the Ministry of Human Resources? What is its

first and most important obligation to the public? One of the problems

in trying to express, in fairness, the concerns of the public about

benefits from the Ministry of Human Resources that are fair and not too

insensitive to the problems of restraint is to be able to recognize

that fiscal restraint has to be supported by everyone,

whereas when we

say "restraint" we don't explain exactly what we mean. Why do we say

restraint is okay? Why can the minister say that she is going to reduce

the amount of income assistance to single individuals by $25, and in

some cases $50 if you are coming for the first time to get assistance?

How can that be an acceptable concept in light of the cost of living

and reality? The general public — let's say those people who are

employed, 80 percent to 85 percent of the public — may not be easily

reached to explain this situation, so the minister may be thinking that

politically she is going to refer to these cuts as saving tax dollars

in times of restraint and difficulty. That's a reasonable explanation;

it sounds fair. When times are tough, we've got to protect ourselves.

Governments have no money of their own. Resource revenues are not

forthcoming as had been anticipated. Employment is down and therefore

the taxation incomes are down. In other words, there just aren't the

dollars, so we say that.

I'm asking the minister to elaborate just a bit beyond the obvious

safeguards of saying that she's saving money. Is she saving lives? Is

she saving the confidence that people need in the system? Is she

encouraging people to believe that this is a fair and reasonable

government? Is she rewarding fairly those people who have struggled

most of their lives but find by circumstances beyond their control that

they are going to be assisted in their time of need?

I can appreciate the catch-22 of the situation. I think any taxpayer

would appreciate the need for fiscal restraint. But at what price? We

have to be pretty sophisticated to understand the workings of

government and the spending of dollars and appropriation of funds for

various services. It isn't something that you can easily explain when

it comes to human beings and human values. I've said this in the past.

When it comes to stacking up cords of wood or hard goods in a normal

industrial situation, it may be easier to deal with your inventory and

to make calculations and projections with respect to market situations

and have a pretty controllable situation in terms of doing business.

It's a lot different when you try to apply full-time equivalents — or

you call them FTEs — with human services. It's a little more

complicated. Are we talking about half of a person or a third of a

person doing a job or what? It really is academic when it comes to that

type of terminology. What's important, and what has to be important in

the Ministry of Human Resources, is equality of service. Restraint by

all means. Efficiency by all means. Save dollars by all means. Everyone

wants that, but restraint clearly has to be a feasible, workable

concept in terms of fairness to the public and those people in need,

who, as the minister herself states, are unable to defend themselves or

compete in the marketplace for various reasons — disabilities or

problems that they may suffer. I can understand that. I can understand

that elderly people perhaps aren't as mobile as some of the young

people under 25 years of age, and I can understand the problems of the

mentally and physically handicapped who may have difficulty competing

and achieving their desires within our society on a competitive basis

with others. Perhaps there has to be a point at which you recognize the

special needs of individuals, be they senior citizens, elementary

school children requiring day care or persons having difficulty

learning in our public school system. My problem is the question of

fairness and the question of respect for the rights of individuals

regardless of their age, sex, politics or circumstances. All citizens

from time to time may find themselves in a situation where they would

fall under one of these rigid categories that we in the Legislature,

for various reasons of convenience, have imposed on them.

The question of age discrimination came up some time ago, as you'll

recall. In 1980 the ombudsman had to address this question because the

ministry was making a category of people 31 years of age and over

receiving X amount of social assistance, and the person below 31

receiving a situation similar to what we have now. So you could say

that we are being revisited by a bad history. In those days the

ombudsman's recommendations were accepted. Now again in 1984 the

ministry has introduced another

schedule which discriminates on the

basis of age, and against people who happen to have families, people

who happen to have children and people who do not have children.

[ Page 3665 ]

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

I personally am offended, and I think that when you experience

discrimination in any form it becomes something that you remember for a

long time. I don't know how the government in its wisdom could turn

around after only four years and reintroduce a concept of age

discrimination, when clearly it is an affront to every citizen. It is

not our right to suggest that because of a person's age they should or

should not be more mobile than someone else. It is not our right to

make those judgments. I don't know where, within the core statutes of

this ministry, the minister has the constitutional right to suggest

that when a person is 26 he is different than a person who is 25,

notwithstanding the need for efficiencies and the convenience of the

bureaucracy. It's just not fair; it's biased. It's a serious affront to

the rights of those people. I think that we can find other measures.

Are we going to go back to the days when we used to do the same

thing to youngsters 25 years of age and under who drove automobiles?

They were assigned risks. I think most of us can remember that they

paid dearly for their age. It didn't matter how good their driving

record was. It didn't matter if they had an excellent record, enjoyed

driving and the pleasure of the highways, could appreciate the nature

of public commuter systems, and had some sense of responsibility when

they were on that living organism called the roadways. They could

appreciate that it was a lifeline for all of us. They drove with great

respect and care. Yet those people had to pay a penalty because of

their age until they were the magic 25. It's these kinds of things that

undermine the honesty and sincerity of the government about those

people who are the objects of these changes.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that by removing social

programs, day-care programs, transition houses and a number of other

programs that she suggests are going to be privatized and not

administered by the government in future.... There are some answers

that she should provide for us with respect to the tendering procedures

used and the settling of these contracts. I would suggest it is curious

that.... It seemed as though in about 12 days a decision had to be

made with respect to tenders coming in for the 22 agencies that the

minister put up for privatization. I would like the minister, in her

response, to advise the House what criteria were used in screening

those applicants. In the past she has suggested that there would be no

loss of service, that the privatization approach would in fact prove to

be more cost-efficient and would be consistent with the government's

belief that it should not be involved in the delivery of direct

services of a social nature but should stick strictly to the core

responsibilities, and should do those through contracts and the support

of private efforts in the voluntary community.

Mr. Chairman, what about the accountability? I hope that the

minister is attentive, because I would like her to address the question

of the criteria. What is the status of those contracts today? How many

of the 22 agencies have yet to be contracted out? What standards are in

place? What monitoring systems will be used to ensure that there is no

disruption in service and that the ministry will not find itself in an

embarrassing situation by virtue of poorly motivated contractors who

may attempt to capitalize or profiteer on the service? I would hope

that that wouldn't happen, but it has been raised as a concern in the

public. When you contract something out, you either are prepared to

subsidize — especially if it's in the Human Resources ministry and they

provide services that are not normally seen as being profit-making

programs, usually costing more than one could exploit for a profit, not

likely to be the kinds of programs that one would invest capital in

unless they had some guarantees and some assurances that they would be

able to achieve a minimum level of profit.... I would like the

minister to indicate if those contracts will also include guarantees

and a commitment with respect to picking up deficits or shortfalls and,

most important, that standards will be maintained with respect to the

care of many of these young people and adults. As well, what will be

the licensing procedures? Have these been established?

[4:45]

Another question has come up, and this one is not a new question.

Some years ago — about 1979, as I recall — considerable debate took

place with respect to the need for a child advocate, someone who

addressed at arm's length from the ministry in a similar situation as

the ombudsman's office or the auditor-general would be. I would like

the minister to indicate her views respecting the need for someone who

would not find himself the deputy minister, on the one hand, having to

play a political role with respect to the concerns of the ministry and

concerns of the minister and, on the other hand, be responsible for the

protection of children specifically.

I have a question that I would like to review with the minister

concerning the need for such a person. It was recommended, in fact, by

some of the professional social workers and others some five years ago,

when the family and child services legislation was being created, that

a child advocate — someone free to address the interests of the

children exclusive of any political considerations — be brought into

being somehow. We don't have such an office in the province, yet we do

have protection laws. We have a statutory duty and responsibility to

protect children from abuse and neglect or any kind of pain and

suffering for which there is no obvious remedy other than for the state

to intervene on their behalf. My question to the minister is: do we

have a situation in the province of British Columbia that is adequately

addressing that situation? Are there any problems with respect to the

present structure we now have where the deputy minister also has to

play the role of superintendent of child welfare? Does that cause any

conflict? Are there any situations where it would be a far more

efficient and believable system if such an advocate were able to act in

some cases aggressively in opposition to the ministry in the interest

of a child?

I am suggesting that that is a most important question. It is

important because of another question I want to ask the minister. I

want to say, before I ask the minister the question, that I'm

interested in procedures — not in cases, although I'm sure that there

are many cases we could address — but in the procedure involving court

orders, to apprehend or to supervise or whatever. Can the minister give

the members of the Legislature an

interpretation of the present

situation where cases in family court have to be heard and where social

workers representing the ministry or an agent on behalf of the

ministry are attending? Are they accompanied by legal counsel? Where

the court order involves apprehension, how efficient and consistent is

the procedure? Is it a commitment on the part of the ministry to adhere

to every court order in a precise way, and does it in fact do so in

every case?

We have had mention of a tragic situation in the Kootenays that

raises a question of procedure. I would like to ask the minister if the

order issued by the judge at the time in that

[ Page 3666 ]

case was adhered to by the minister. Can the

minister or the deputy

or the superintendent of child welfare — whoever — assure the House

that when a court order under the statutes of British Columbia on the

protection of children...? As the minister says, it's a core

responsibility, not a special service. It is a commitment and a duty on

the part of the ministry to adhere to court orders. Now I'm asking: did

the minister and the deputy minister and her staff receive a court

order to supervise in that case, and was it strictly adhered to? If so,

can the minister advise the House by whom? I would like to know the

classification of the staff person who was involved.

That question raises the other concern I have with respect to the

226 family support workers who were terminated who were specifically

assigned to providing support in homes where risk existed with young

people, in cooperation with other staff people in the ministry. The

minister has said on previous occasions that although these specialists

— family support workers, child care workers in the schools and the

homes, members of special teams, counsellors, coordinators, child abuse

teams, and so forth — and specialized programs were not to be

continued, there were sufficient social workers still engaged in the

ministry to provide all of those specialized services so that there

would be no breakdown in the delivery of service with respect to

statutory responsibilities. I would like the minister to set the record

straight with respect to having fulfilled the ministry's statutory

obligations — in that case, specifically — and to clarify for the House

the procedure with respect to this kind of situation where court orders

are involved right across the province, and who actually does the work.

I would just like to say, with respect to the social workers,

that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, your time is up.

MR. BARNES: Oh, I'm sorry, do we have to have an intervening

speaker? Okay, I'll sit down.

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the Minister of Human

Resources related to a letter I wrote some time ago, and I assume that

the minister and her ministry are looking into the particular problem

that I raised. This relates to maintenance payments, and the fact that

it's usually women with children who are receiving maintenance payments

from their spouses and are allowed to deduct $100. In other words, they

can receive $100 in maintenance payments before it affects their

welfare income. That is not the case with the same kind of maintenance

that is paid out through the Workers' Compensation Board, and this has

been brought to my attention.

We have a situation