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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3711 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Marriages of convenience. Ms. Brown –– 3711

Sale of B.C. Systems Corporation. Mr. Nicolson –– 3711

B.C. Systems Corporation data. Mr. Hanson –– 3712

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hanson

Ambulance dispatch centres. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 3713

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

On vote 39: minister's office –– 3713

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

ML Mitchell

Mr. Barnes

On the amendment to vote 39 –– 3721

Division

On vote 39 –– 3721

Mr. Howard

On vote 76: transit services –– 3722

MR. PASSARELL

Mr. Rose

Mr. Skelly

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lank

British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 10). Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3731

Mr. Passarell –– 3731

Mr. Lauk –– 3732

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3732

Motion

Mr. Cocke –– 3732

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 20: minister's office –– 3733

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Kempf

Appendix –– 3735

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have on the floor of the House today Mr.

Rick Folk, Minister of Culture and Recreation for the province of

Saskatchewan. I think it's a very appropriate time for Mr. Folk to be

in Victoria, when the Brier is on, because he was the winner of the

Canadian Brier in 1980 at Calgary and went on the same year to win the

world championship in Moncton, New Brunswick. I'd like the House to

join me in welcoming Mr. Folk. I'd also like to welcome his executive

assistant Mr. Rick Parken, who is in the members' gallery.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

welcome to the floor of the House today someone who is very well-known

not only in British Columbia but right across Canada. He is a Member of

Parliament and leader of the NDP in Ottawa. He's also a very brave

person, because he spent lunch with the four women members of the NDP

to help us....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: He came through it.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: No, we paid the bill.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss International Women's Day.

Mr. Broadbent was here to help us celebrate it, and to discuss the

NDP's policy regarding economic equality for women. So, Mr. Speaker, I

thank you for giving me these few moments to introduce to the House Mr.

Ed Broadbent.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the

rules of the House do not permit the member to make a speech. However,

on behalf of the government I would like to join in welcoming our

distinguished visitor to the House today, for whatever reasons may have

motivated Mr. Broadbent to visit Victoria on a beautiful, sunny spring

day — whether it's the minus 20 degrees in Ottawa or whether it's to

discuss in advance those who will not be the provincial leader after

the May selection as possible candidates for another selection which

will be before us in our country in the next period of time. I think

perhaps, though, that the member for Burnaby North has offered the best

possible explanation: Mr. Broadbent journeyed west for the sole purpose

of dining with the women members of the NDP caucus in Victoria on

International Women's Day. I'm pleased that because of our strong stand

for equality the ladies paid for lunch today. On behalf of the

government, I extend a very sincere welcome to Victoria and to British

Columbia, Mr. Broadbent; we hope that all goes well for you and that

you take our best wishes back to the nation's capital.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two very distinguished

psychiatrists from Japan. They have come to Canada to visit our mental health

facilities, and I thought it only appropriate that they spend some time in the

British Columbia Legislature. They are Dr. Akira Kashiba, who is here from Hirakata

City in Osaka, and Dr. Hiro Kimura, a former colleague of mine, who is a professor

of psychiatry at Shiga Medical School. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a man who

probably thinks his brother is crazy, because he is a politician. But

if he is anything like his brother we'd like to have him here. His name

is Archie Campbell, who is here with his wife Eileen. Please welcome

them.

Oral Questions

MARRIAGES OF CONVENIENCE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), but in his absence I will address it

not to the acting Attorney-General, because he is also absent, but the

acting acting Attorney-General, the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker,

it concerns an advertisement which appeared in the March 3 edition of

the Peace Arch News published

in White Rock. The ad went as follows: "If you are looking for a

loving, faithful Asian wife, we have a thousand beautiful, honest girls

16 to 65 years." The ad refers to a post office box in Victoria and

suggests that you send $5 for a catalogue. Does the acting acting

Attorney-General approve of this kind of advertising in the British

Columbia public media?

AN HON. MEMBER: Remove the age requirement. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, there seem to be oodles of

answers emanating from this side of the House, but I think, in view of

the seriousness in which the question was advanced by the member, that

it would probably be best that I take it as notice.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, a second question on the same topic.

I am pleased that the minister recognizes its seriousness, because it

is a degrading ad. Would he find out from the Attorney-General what he

intends to do about it if he does not approve of this form of

advertising?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice as well.

SALE OF B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. NICOLSON: The closing date for proposals from private

interests wishing to acquire B.C. Systems Corporation was July 31,

1983. Will the Minister of Finance now advise whether he has received a

report from the sales advisory committee regarding these proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer is yes.

MR. NICOLSON: Has the minister or any government official

taken steps to solicit proposals for B.C. Systems Corporation involving

offshore investment?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, certainly I have done nothing

to solicit proposals with respect to the disposition of part or all of

B.C. Systems Corporation...

MR. NICOLSON: Or any member or officials?

[ Page 3712 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I haven't finished, Mr. Member.

...other than that which was made clear earlier on. It may assist

the House to know that the sales advisory committee, which I appointed

to receive proposals, met with me for the first time, following their

review of proposals, one week ago Friday. I therefore have their report

and the associated material. That material is under review at this

point in time by my office only and has not yet been taken to the

executive council.

MR. NICOLSON: Has the minister set a date for liquidating B.C. Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answering the question the

word "liquidate" may or may not be appropriate. The announced decision

of the government was to dispose of B.C. Systems Corporation and to

invite proposals.

I'm pleased that the member has asked the question, because there

are a number of rumours circulating at this time with respect to the

status of the proposals within government. I repeat, sir: I have that

material. I have not yet had an opportunity to fully digest it, let

alone take it to my cabinet colleagues. That will occur in the course

of the coming weeks.

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION DATA

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the same minister with

respect to the security of data at B.C. Systems Corporation. There's

considerable concern surrounding the sale of B.C. Systems, because the

vital statistics, motor vehicle records, medical records, etc. — the

nervous system of government — is contained within the data bank of

BCSC. I wish to bring that to the minister's attention and ask how a

computerized label within the data bank of BCSC fell into the hands of

the Social Credit Party. A coded label identical to one on a Ministry

of Industry and Small Business Development mailing list was present on

a fund-raising letter sent by the Social Credit Party and signed by Mr.

Bernie Smith. I would like to ask the minister how such a breach of

security from a data bank in B.C. could cause that to fall into the

hands of the Social Credit Party.

[2:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to receive the

material to which the member has referred in his question and would

certainly take that part of the question as notice and report back to

the House. The member has described it as a breach of security. I think

my investigation would indicate whether that is or is not correct.

I want to also point out that in the course of the debate on my

estimates concluding earlier this week there was not one question in

committee with respect to the B.C. Systems Corporation and its

disposition, or future plans for that corporation. I was expecting that

some questions would be posed. They were not.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What does that mean?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It means that a couple of days ago it was not considered an important matter for debate in this House or in the committee.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They don't like to be reminded of their inadequacies, Mr. Speaker.

Also, it's a matter of record that at the time the Systems

Corporation was first proposed for formation, the same concerns about

security of information "being vested in one agency within government"

were spoken of often in this chamber. Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker,

security of information which is stored in the Systems Corporation must

be paramount in any decision the government reaches with respect to the

disposition of some or all of that corporation.

MR. HANSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister

what steps the minister had taken to ensure that no breach of security

would occur if the award were made to a private company to be the

custodian of such privileged information, This particular individual is

extremely concerned that his label, with an incorrect address and a

computerized label from a government codified bank, has turned up in

the hands of a political party. You have not satisfied this House, Mr.

Minister, with respect to the breach of security around this matter.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the apparent or alleged breach of

security, I invite the member to table or provide to me — whichever he

wishes — the material which has formed the basis of his questions. What

steps have I taken? I thought I dealt with that in answering the

question; perhaps I didn't. The security of the information which is

stored in the British Columbia Systems Corporation and, indeed,

information which rests within ministries — because it isn't all in the

Systems Corporation, as members will know.... As one example, there is

information within the Ministry of Health which is transmitted to the

British Columbia Systems Corporation. The question of that security is

extremely important. It is not so much a question of what steps I have

taken but what steps would the government take to ensure that security.

I also inform the House that from time to time we have had a breach

of security in the Systems Corporation. One in particular, which was

very thoroughly investigated, involved an extremely bright and

competent student in a secondary school in the Greater Victoria area

who accessed some information. Steps were taken following that to

ensure that that sort of thing was held to a minimum.

It is quite clear that when data is stored, whether in the hands of

the private sector or in government, security has to be of primary

concern. It has been, it is now, and it will remain so.

MR. HANSON: I would like to ask the minister if he is aware

of any practice in the B.C. Systems Corporation or any ministry of

government of selling computer tapes or labels to highest bidders,

whether political party or private enterprise?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not, with the

exception of an instance where, with the full knowledge and concurrence

of government, certain material regarding assessments has been made

available to the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board or the British

Columbia Real Estate Association, not individual, personal or private

information. In responding to the member, I cannot issue a flat denial

that certain data has been made available, but it has been made

available in a proper and correct form. I again invite the

[ Page 3713 ]

member to provide me with the material which has caused him concern today.

AMBULANCE DISPATCH CENTRES

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, to prevent further agitation

on the part of the member for Mackenzie, I would like to respond to a

question he has brought forward on two occasions. The member asked

questions relative to the emergency health service in Powell River on

February 17 and again on March 6 — about the closure of the emergency

health dispatch unit at Powell River and transfer of those duties to

Nanaimo. The member for Mackenzie made a series of allegations, which

were dealt with in part previously, and I wish to respond to some of

the other comments now.

I informed the member that I would inquire into the circumstances

surrounding the changeover of ambulance dispatch services from the

community of Powell River to Nanaimo, and people within the ministry

have now advised me of the facts concerning the transfer. I am advised

by the Emergency Health Services Commission that Nanaimo is now one of

six regional dispatch centres which dispatch our ambulances on behalf

of 68 areas within the province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Everybody knows that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Except the member for Mackenzie.

The system has been in place since 1977, when the system began

upgrading dispatch services by creating a regional dispatch network

staffed with highly qualified professional ambulance dispatchers

trained to exacting standards. The system ensures the uniformity of the

quality of service throughout the province, and reassures our citizens

that, regardless of the size of the community in which they live, they

can rely on the quality of the dispatch system. I would also mention

that the RCMP uses a very similar regional dispatching system.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And it works just as badly with them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Mackenzie may be interested

to know that Powell River is one of three recent dispatch upgradings to

take place. It means that calls for ambulances are routed from the

local community to the Nanaimo dispatch office. When the call reaches

the Nanaimo dispatch office, a professional dispatcher, who knows

immediately the whereabouts of every ambulance in his region and the

nearest ambulance to the area, dispatches an appropriate vehicle and

crew. As trained ambulance professionals, the regional dispatchers are

able to provide critical assistance on the phone to callers.

Powell River is the latest upgrading, following Port Alberni in

February, Comox Valley dispatch service in January. In neither of those

cases was there any difficulty in the technically challenging job of

transferring the dispatch service from local units to the regional unit

at Nanaimo. During the installation of the changeover from Powell River

to Nanaimo, B.C. Telephones has advised our officials that there were

problems with faulty equipment at the Nanaimo exchange. The equipment

was traced and subsequently replaced. The member has tabled memoranda

from the fire chief at Powell River outlining several incidents which

occurred during the changeover, due to the faulty equipment, a problem

beyond the control of the emergency health service, and one which could

not have been foreseen in its plans to bring improved service to Powell

River.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no reported incidents since that time.

No individual has been reported to have suffered as a result of these

delays, and no complaints have been filed with the commission. In fact,

we have only the comments of the fire chief thus far in trying to

determine all the facts surrounding the initial difficulties with the

phone service. The Emergency Health Services Commission advises me that

the shift pattern for staffing the Powell River ambulance unit has also

been improved, ensuring that we have two full-time staff members to be

on the ambulance seven days per week, as opposed to five days per week

under the old system.

To summarize, Mr. Speaker, improvements have been made and will

continue to be made to the dispatch system for ambulances in B.C. As we

continue to improve and upgrade our systems, we'll continue also to

meet with and listen to and cooperate with local officials as we have

done with the fire department in Powell River, to ensure all British

Columbians have the same first-class professional service. In the case

of Powell River, the service has been enhanced, as it was in other

centres in the province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, with a view to keeping the members informed, I would like to file answers to questions on the order paper.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity to

get up and correct some of the statements just made by the Minister of

Health. There were a number of inaccuracies in that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, you will have an

opportunity to make any corrections deemed necessary at the appropriate

time, which is not now.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table the material I referred to in my question.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 39: minister's office, $208,514.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have just one short question about

the ministry. It has specifically to do with the case of Mrs. Christine

Shaw. I wonder whether the minister would be willing to give me an

update as to the status of that particular case. Apparently Mrs. Shaw

has written to the minister. This has to do with the assault which her

child suffered during the time she was in foster care. Can the minister

tell me what the status of Mrs. Shaw's case is at this time?

[ Page 3714 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think I can. I am aware of the subject

of the query, but I'm not up to date right now, from memory. Let me get

that information within the hour.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a couple of points I'd like to raise

with the minister. One relates to an instance which points out the

difficulties that occur with the GAIN regulations relative to earned

and unearned income. The minister is aware, I think, of both these

issues, but she keeps....

Well, the one is obviously not being considered, and the other she

says she has no thoughts of changing at this time. The one I want to

raise with the minister today relates to.... I think an example is

probably the best way to point it out. The husband in this instance is

in receipt of a veteran's allowance. The wife is in receipt of GAIN.

There is a child who was receiving family allowance. Family allowance

is considered as earned income, and GAIN is not cut back in the amount

of family allowance received when calculating the total income for the

family unit. The child reached the age of 18, was dropped from family

allowance, and the veteran's pension was increased by a like amount

because the child is still in school — that is a policy for the federal

veteran's pension. That is considered unearned income, and as a result

of that the wife's GAIN income has been reduced by the amount of that

family allowance. I'm sure the minister will realize the difficulty in

which this places the family, which has a young growing child in school

— to have their income curtailed by that amount.

I'm sure the minister will agree with me. She has been telling us in

this House that because of the difficult times the province is facing

she's not able to grant the increases that she feels would really be

justified, that she just doesn't have the money. In this case, it is a

reduction to a family in that amount because of the different source of

income. I just feel that I have to point it out again. She has

indicated to me that she has no intention of changing her policy at

this time. I'm asking her once again whether or not she would consider

reviewing that policy relative to earned and unearned income, because

it seems to me that in the case of a family, if we're going to maintain

that kind of approach — that the family has to come first and we're

going to look at cutting back single people and young people; not that

I agree with that, but that's the policy the minister has

enunciated.... This falls into the category of groups of people she's

trying to support. I really am concerned about that.

[2:30]

The other item I'll just raise briefly while I'm on my feet is

really a federal item. It has to do with day-care centres. I did talk

to the minister at one time about the difference in rates allowed for

the different types of day care. Family day care gets a lower allowance

than another type of day-care centre, but family day care has suddenly

been hit with a change in the federal income tax policy, so that they

have to come up to a whole different standard of provisions relative to

federal income tax policy. They have to set aside a special

section of

their house; none of the rooms that are used for day care can be for

family use. They have to declare themselves as a business and be taxed

as a business under the new federal guidelines, and this creates a

terrific problem for day-care centres. In view of that, is the minister

at least prepared to reconsider her assessment or her allowance for

private family day-care centres.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would have to look into that. I'm not

aware of the change; it's a change in federal policy which impacts on

the revenue to a day-care centre. I can't give you the answer; I don't

know. I'll be glad to find out.

On the other one, we do make an exception. As you know, when someone

is on income assistance, the family allowance is not included, so that

above and beyond for each child the family tax credit or the family

allowance is not counted. In the veterans' allowance it would be the

same. Let me just say that if we made the change in this instance and

if you carried that to all areas of policy, you would find that people

— seniors, for instance — who have different incomes would also demand

the same thing.

I'll take another look at it; I'll be very pleased to do that. What

I mentioned to you when we last debated this I think prevails, but I'll

be very pleased to look into it and get an answer back to you.

MRS. WALLACE: I would point out that this is not universal.

It wouldn't have to relate to seniors, because this actually relates to

funds provided for a child in school. It replaces the family allowance

in that instance, so it does seem to me to be somewhat different.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to participate in

this debate, not so much for what the minister has said but what she

has failed to say in her address to the House. I have to give the

minister a lot of credit for dealing with all the detailed operations

of the particular budget, the particular problems within the ministry.

We have had nearly two days of technical information. Again in support

of the minister, in my own riding, whenever I have wanted assistance

from her particular department I have had excellent cooperation.

But what really has bothered me is any philosophical discussion of

where we in British Columbia are going to go; what effect unemployment

and the welfare curbs are having on families, on police budgets, on the

people living on the streets, on the people who are losing thousands

and thousands of dollars from pilfering because of unemployment and

people stealing to survive. I find that nowhere in her talk, or her

discussion, has she faced this particular issue, or brought to the

House or the public of British Columbia the same hope that she brought

in March 1983 when she sent out to all of us — to the media, everyone

and sundry in British Columbia — the proposals of her ministry, what

her government was doing to instil a kind of hope of an opportunity to

work. When I go through this particular job-creation program — she

entitled it "Success or Failure" —

section by section, she indicates to

the people of British Columbia, and to the youth especially, that there

are job opportunities on the horizon. As we all know, this was sent out

prior to the election, but it was sent out with the knowledge of the

economic situation in British Columbia. I know that if I said that

sending it out was deceitful you would say that was unparliamentary.

What I would like to say to the minister is that the question of

jobs, the problem of cutting off hope to a lot of young people and

families, has to be faced by the government; it has to be faced by each

and every one of us who is elected. We can't continue to cloud the

issue with the technical problems. I know they exist and each one of

those is very important, but I think.... I know that the minister has a

lot of clout in her own cabinet, but she must be prepared to give some

leadership and some potential hope that the

[ Page 3715 ]

programs that she announced were going to carry on,

such as the EBAP program.... This was given out in March, a few months

before the election, and right after the election they were cut off. A

question I brought to the Minister of Finance was: when is the

government going to sign a contract through the Ministry of Forests

with the federal government to get back into the silviculture program

that is providing jobs which are going to relieve some of our welfare

and social problems? Mr. Chairman, I think that we have to have some

answers. We can't continue to cut people back and not expect an

explosion out on the street. It's the little person who is going to

suffer. It's the little people who are going to lose their goods and

chattels from their cars, which are being continually rifled. It is

going to be the little person who in frustration will be spending time

in jail. It will be the little people — policemen — who have to

continue to take pressure from family problems.

Let me read some of the letters she sent out to all MLAs prior to

the election, asking for suggestions for job opportunities. We must

look at that from a philosophical position. We must look at it from the

need of facing the position that British Columbia is in. We can't

continue to allow it to go down without realizing there is a problem

that is going to explode. I remember when the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) said that there was going to be violence

on the streets a number of years ago. That violence is there. It's a

very latent violence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where?

MR. MITCHELL: It is there, and it is being shown in the

street prostitution in Vancouver and Victoria, because people are going

to survive. People are going to have to exist. When we don't give

people the opportunity to look forward to having a job and some hope,

we are going to have that problem come back to us in many, many ways. I

don't think we can afford to have it continue. I ask the minister to do

some of her philosophical discussions of where the people of British

Columbia are going to go. I don't want to hear clichés that somewhere

down the line private industry is going to lead us into the good way of

life. The only way we're going to get into the good way of life is if

we in society, in this House and in this government take a positive

stand and give some of that initiative and leadership. It's easy for

all these people, who are sitting there with their $50,000 and $100,000

incomes, to sit and laugh, but for a lot of people who had $50 cut off

their wages....

MR. MOWAT: How much income?

MR. MITCHELL: Anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 sitting in

that little group over there. That is a fact of life, and you know it.

You can sit, laugh and make all kinds of fun, but out in the street

there are people who are suffering. There are people in each one of our

communities who are suffering.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, if you will bring some order back

to that rowdy group of super-millionaires, then they would bring down

to the facts of somewhere down the line.... I withdraw that. That is a

very unparliamentary remark, even to the rich group over there which is

headed by engineers and ministers of the Crown. Some of them have lots

of investments. There are a lot of people who are looking for some

help, and I sincerely say....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: I can always tell when I'm getting to their

consciences, because it really bothers them. I know they have a

conscience. I know they care, but they have to show that disregard to

humanity in support of the government's hold-tight program. I say there

is a need for a certain amount of restraint in waste. I've said this

time after time. But there's also a need right now that the minister

review some of the promises that she made in her three- four- or

five-page press release with a lot of positive answers, a lot of

positive suggestions and a lot of hope. I ask the minister: would she

review it? What has she to recommend to this House or to her cabinet

for an answer to the problems?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'll be so pleased when the

other Vancouver Centre member arrives, because what we are being asked

again today is what has been asked for two days and what I've answered

for two days. I think I would just refer the member to the response

that I have made in the past two days to the like question from his

colleague from Vancouver Centre: we are protecting those in most need

in this province.

You've made reference to employment. This is not the ministry of

employment. It is the ministry that gives people temporary help in time

of need. Any references that I made in responses and in requesting our

fellow MLAs in this House to assist was in reference to an employment

development program which I was pleased to be associated with last

year. It was a joint program with the federal government. We used

funding and we placed many, many people in many, many jobs and it was a

very successful program. In fact, British Columbia placed more in that

program, throughout the province, than did all the rest of the

provinces in Canada put together.

I have to say again that questions of why there is a worldwide

recession and how to meet the worldwide recession are really not

appropriate to this ministry. We are the ones who pick up the pieces in

the event of a worldwide recession, and this ministry has done so in a

very capable way. I'm pleased and proud that my staff have been able to

do so.

[2:45]

Prior to lunch I was asked a question by the member for Vancouver

Centre, and I did want to get into some of the detail of the income

assistance to families. I think the basis of the question sprang from

the fact that very many food banks have sprung up during the time of

this recession, and was it not a signal that perhaps there was not

sufficient money going into income assistance. Once again I say that

three-quarters of a billion dollars is going into helping those people,

of whom 76 percent are on for eight months or less. The turnover is

very quick. Eight months on social assistance is not something that

people would want to look forward to, so I'm not suggesting that that's

a short time. I just say it's shorter than most people think it is.

They think of people coming and staying on for years and years. It's an

ever-changing population in the income assistance group.

The member said that with escalating rents, etc., there would be

pressure on those people to provide for their families and that is why

food banks are so popular. It may well be

[ Page 3716 ]

that food banks are popular because there are some

people who do not go on income assistance. It isn't always income

assistance people who are using food banks. It's people who either will

not, or have assets for some reason and do not, take income assistance.

You have to consider that.

I want to give you some statistics in terms of numbers and dollars,

etc. There is a fair amount of extras that go with families that is

never counted in. We talked about the family of four yesterday — a

single parent with three children. One of the children was in day care

and two were at school. When you add up all of the extras and all of

the things that she gets, the gross potential disposable income for

that mother with three children is $15,880 a year;

whereas the

disposable income of a financial assistance worker in our ministry who

is also a single parent and also has three children, one in day care

and two in school, amounts to $18,400. So when you make the case for

increases, you can readily see that there is a very fine line to be

drawn here. There are some people who are working every day who think

that the extra they have to put out in order to work is a considerable

sacrifice on their part.

I am looking forward to the questions from both members for

Vancouver Centre, and I thank you for giving me this opportunity to

answer.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, it has actually been a long two or

three days, and I will continue at the same pace I was this morning.

Hopefully we can complete my questioning of the minister.

She just commented on the question I raised this morning about the

numbers of people on social assistance who are also having to

supplement their social assistance incomes by standing in long lines at

food banks. I want to remind the minister that although they're not all

social assistance recipients, approximately 85 percent are, and that is

quite a large number. She was saying that some are not, and that's

quite true. Probably about 15 percent are not, from the statistics that

I'm getting on my visits to the foods banks in the Vancouver area, and

I've visited two or three of them.

The other examples the minister gave were with respect to the social

assistance financial aid worker. She compared the mother with the two

children, whose social assistance was in the area of $15,000 per year,

to $18,000 for the financial aid worker. The needs cannot be based on

the availability of jobs. We are talking about what is necessary to

subsist on. Obviously the person who is able to be constructively

engaged in employment has that advantage, and that is a very real

advantage for people compared to those who do not have an opportunity

for constructive use of their time and have to find other ways to

engage themselves. I think a person who has a job, even if it's only

$3,000 more than a person on social assistance, has many advantages due

to the fact that they do have employment.

There is another point that I wanted to provide information on. I

checked on the subject we raised this morning to do with the sex

therapist counsellor, whom we commented on from the Province

newspaper. I have reviewed with researchers to determine what the

regulations are respecting a person who wishes to set themselves up as

a counsellor. I believe the minister made the remark this morning that

as far as she knew one could not call themselves a counsellor without

being a counsellor. I'm not sure if by that she meant they would have

to be in some way certified. She is correct if she means that if they

call themselves a counsellor, they are a counsellor. That's quite

correct. But therein lies the concern of the opposition.

In this province, as I understand and am told, one may call oneself

a sex therapist, a counsellor, a marriage counsellor or a social worker

without having to meet any kind of standard or regulation. But one

cannot call oneself a registered social worker, Mr. Chairman, without

being registered by the society. Apparently that is a voluntary

procedure and not required, but it would be an advantage if they wanted

to distinguish themselves from anyone who just wished to call

themselves a social worker or a counsellor, or any of these other

categories.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment on what steps the

superintendent of family and child services would take to ensure that

the initiatives to privatize some of the agencies that are providing

services to families and children are not subjected to people who may

not be able to be held responsible for the ministry's obligations.

There is obviously an appalling lack of regulations in this field, and

this is one of the concerns that we in the opposition have had

respecting the whole concept of privatization. I make that point as a

warning and as a concern.

Another area of concern has to do with the seniors' supplement. In

this fiscal year's estimates, apparently the $18 million that was

previously in place remains. Will the federal government's guaranteed

income supplement of $25, due to come on stream July 1, be passed on?

In other words, will senior citizens, or persons receiving the

provincial supplement, also receive the $25, which would be in addition

to the $38.88 currently received, or will it mean that it will not be

passed on and will somehow find itself in consolidated revenue and that

they will receive $13.88? I'm not sure. I'd just like to know what will

happen. Also, there is a second phase to the $25 — another $25 in

January 1985. Will the government be passing this on to the seniors?

Another question has to do with the SAFER services to seniors. The

estimates previously indicated $7.5 million as a total grant for SAFER.

The 1984-85 estimates show an increase of some $2 million to $9.5

million. Would this indicate that an increase in SAFER benefits is the

objective? Would the minister advise us in this regard?

Another question has to do with seniors' day centres. Would the

minister tell the House the reasons for withdrawing the $16,000 that

was being provided for the Eastside Seniors' Activity Centre in the

downtown Vancouver area? The moneys that were being provided had paid

Cantonese community, as well as craft classes, bus tours, assistance

with medical, tax and immigration forms, translation services and

personal counselling.

MR. MOWAT: Are you talking about 411?

MR. BARNES: No, that's on Dunsmuir. This is in Chinatown. It was in the newspapers. It's one of the major ones.

I have one other question as well, Mr. Chairman, respecting

refugees. They are usually people who are inland, but they have come to

this country and are awaiting approval by the federal manpower and

immigration department. These people sometimes can wait for as long as

18 months in order to have their status verified — whether they will or

will not be accepted as citizens. However, in the interim such refugees

in the province of British Columbia have been, as I understand

[ Page 3717 ]

it, considered ineligible for assistance from the

Ministry of Human Resources. I would appreciate it if the minister

would clarify the position with respect to this and the Canada

Assistance Plan, which states that no such distinction with respect to

any resident in the province...that they should be eligible regardless

of their status while they are awaiting a designation from Employment

and Immigration. I will leave those with you and we'll go on.

[3:00]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the status of a potential

immigrant has to be determined by the federal administration. We don't

have any, if you like, communication or business.... We may have

communication, but we certainly don't have any business with that

person who is applying for entry into Canada for the first year, within

the year.

MR. BARNES: Would they get assistance?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, they don't get assistance from us.

The federal administration has what they call a settlement assistance.

Everything is done through the federal government. We don't touch that

at all. We have no reference to it at all. By the time the year is up,

they are settled as citizens or as landed immigrants. We may enter the

picture at that time, and then we will decide on their eligibility for

us based on their capability to stand on their own feet. So really that

isn't a problem. It's a federal government problem and the federal

government provides the settlement assistance.

On the SAFER question, the answer to that is no, there is no

increase in benefits. The money that is provided within the budget

maintains the program as it has done in past years. In response to

whether or not we will have close jurisdiction and close watch over the

people who will take the 22 new agreements on, we have the experience

and the satisfaction of knowing that ten years' experience in this

field, with 600 like organizations and services, has been exceptional

in this province. The agreement is done at the local level where people

know each other in the community. We know the staff that will be

involved. There is a monitoring system with visits paid by our staff in

the ministry office to these organizations.

There is a liaison almost on a daily basis. When a project like that

starts, whether it is funded by government or through government to

society, there is always a liaison with the local office because we are

dealing with a child or a battered wife who is in need. There are

always phone calls back and forth in liaison. Our local office is very

much in touch on a daily basis, not just a once-in-a-while visit.

During the time that we have the agreement there is a very good

opportunity for a concern to be expressed, either by another staff

member or by members of the public, and if that concern is expressed

then certainly we can deal with it. We can deal with it immediately,

because we really hold that agreement in our hands. There is no year of

negotiations as to whether or not someone should be laid off, which

certainly happens in government circles and in many private firms as

well. That is a possibility. If there is something wrong...and there

could be, as we are dealing with hundreds and hundreds of people. You

appreciate that can happen in government service; that can happen in

the private sector; that can happen in community services.

On the other question that you asked regarding the seniors'

supplementary or the seniors' incremental increases, there was only one

time when that wasn't passed on to the seniors in this province, and

the Social Credit government wasn't here. The New Democratic Party was

in charge. That was the only time in history that it wasn't passed on.

It was either 1973 or 1974 — I can look it up. I know that you'd be

pleased to know that this government always has and always will pass on

those increases to the seniors. Whatever the federal government wishes

to give, we are passing it on.

MR. BARNES: Will there be a reduction in what they are getting?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, we have always passed it on. There has never been a reduction. It becomes an increase for the senior citizen.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: What are you getting twitchy about? I thought we

were making real progress. We are getting ready for a big vote. We are

never going to be finished if people's business is an ongoing process,

Mr. Minister of Health.

This question has to do with the mentally retarded. The estimates

for this year indicate that expenditures will be $7 million over the

previous year. Does the minister intend to reinstate the PIRT team to

assist in the process of decentralization of those mental retardation

institutions? Will any of the money be sent to the British Columbians

for the mentally handicapped society to reinstate the training program

grant of $60,000 which was withdrawn last year? Has the minister any

plans to use these additional funds to reinstate the mentally retarded

coordinators at district levels? And could the minister advise the

house what progress is being made with respect to the decentralization

program? I would appreciate if she would comment on the facilities in

the communities where these individuals are to be relocated in their

communities.

While she is doing that, I would just briefly, for the record,

express the sentiments of the president of the British Columbians for

Mentally Handicapped People. I said "mentally retarded"; they are

handicapped people. That's the correct designation. This is an

article

from earlier in the year, January 16, entitled "In-Service Team Axing

Was An Inhumane Move." The text is as follows:

"The provincial in-service resources team eliminated

by the provincial government on July 7 was by all accounts the best

such group on the continent. That small team of six people provided

cost-effective training, support and resource expertise to parents of

mentally handicapped children with severe behaviour and communication

difficulties. Without PIRT" — that's the provincial in-service

resources team that was providing the service for these families — "the

children were in danger of being placed in institutions at a staggering

cost to taxpayers of $130 to $200 per day. The human cost was equally

intolerable: children removed from their own homes to spend their lives

in inhospitable, impersonal institutions.

"The PIRT team sifted through the best of research and

theory, translating it into down-to-earth, practical suggestions for

parents, special teachers and other providers of service. They were the

professionals whom professionals went to. Once PIRT accepted a case,

parents and professionals involved with the

[ Page 3718 ]

handicapped person became involved in a contract to ensure that

training was carried out. Now they are gone, and the circle of despair and frustration

for parents begins again.

"Withdrawal of support from such parents leads to

family stress that occasionally leads to family breakdown. Too often

the direct result is institutionalization of handicapped children. Few

parents want to give up their handicapped children to the care of

others. Ironically, while our government professes its allegiance to

the family and to normal community living for mentally handicapped

children, its decision to eliminate PIRT has the opposite result.

Further, the provincial government now knows there is no community

agency capable of providing the highly specialized services that PIRT

provided.

"British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People are

joining with parents and other community groups to press for restoration of

PIRT. We invite your readers to support us by expressing their concern to the

Minister of Human Resources....."

They go on to appeal to the minister. I would like to ask the

minister if she has received those appeals, and what is her response

with respect to that and the questions I raised earlier?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member raises the question of the

provincial in-service resources team. First of all, I think it's very

important for the member to understand that the government has

committed itself to the development of community-based services for

handicapped children. A great deal is happening in this regard, and has

been for a very long time. This has been a government policy. The PIRT

team was only a relatively small support service to that whole idea and

organization, that whole commitment. The elimination of it will not

lead to children being placed in institutions. We have, I suggest, the

most aggressive program in North America for deinstitutionalization.

There isn't anything like it anywhere else in Canada; I don't know

about the rest of the North American continent. Nobody's doing anything

like we are doing in deinstitutionalization. Only the most severely

handicapped are even admitted to an institution today, and that's been

going on not just this year or last year but for four or five years

now. We don't even admit at the first instance. It used to be that if a

child was born mentally handicapped, the first thing was to just put

them in an institution. That doesn't happen any more. Only where there

are very profound problems are they even entered. The ones who have

been in there....

When we finish the deinstitutionalization process in Tranquille,

about 4 percent or less of the mentally handicapped in the province

will be in an institution. Right now about 5 percent of the mentally

handicapped are in institutions. We will reduce that number by a full 1

percent or more by the end of this year. You referred to PIRT, and I

say again that the provincial in-service resources team was first

introduced with the intent to assist in training and developing

services for autistic children. Those were developed and are in place

today. I can tell you a little bit about that program, but you didn't

ask the question, so let me go on to answer what you did ask.

During that time when PIRT was first established.... Then it went

from that goal to others. We've established the infant development

program, which has turned out to be of tremendous assistance. This is

when we do have a child who is born with some problems and at the

moment that they're in the community and not placed in an institution —

again I reiterate, we don't do that — then we have an infant

development program that has had marvellous successes. It works with

the child and the mother from the time that they're home from the

hospital or even in the hospital. That's an incredible program. It's

throughout the province to provide direct support and services to

handicapped children. That's been added since PIRT was established. New

programs provide life-skills training for the handicapped, particularly

the older young people. I worked with the then Minister of Education to

establish the Chance program to make sure that handicapped children in

schools could be kept in schools and those who had never seen a

schoolroom could be brought into the schoolroom with non-handicapped

children and integrated. Children are far more adaptable, and they say

they're far more cruel, but they're also far more quick to change and

be accepting. I see the day less than a decade away that it will be

completely normal to see disabled and able working side by side. It's

happening right now in the province of British Columbia. I've heard you

say on a couple of occasions in these estimates that we were given

great credit for all of these things when they were introduced. Not so,

Mr. Chairman. But it goes on with its successes every day, and we don't

want credit; we want it to be a success. But we do want it to be

recognized that it does lead the nation in that regard. I think we all

want that for our handicapped youngsters — to lead the nation in

services.

[3:15]

So we made a choice on the PIRT program. It was a choice between

reducing staff and expenditures or terminating services on a priority

basis. We preferred to have the direct services for those handicapped

youngsters and the young people who are mentally disabled. So that

little PIRT group has been cancelled. It will not be coming back.

The question about phasing out Tranquille and what we are doing to

phase it out: so far it's a very successful operation. We're getting a

lot of cooperation. We have cooperation from the organization that is

responsible for the mentally disabled. I know that the House Leader for

the New Democratic Party is coming in to give the good news that the

second member for Vancouver Centre has finally crossed the water and is

going to be in the House soon.

But to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), with whom

we are debating the Ministry of Human Resources estimates, I want you

to know that that has gone on very well in Tranquille so far. There

have been the expected concerns over change. I quite appreciate what

that would be like, so I've tried very hard to have both staff and the

organizations give out the information that leads to a sense of

security within all of the parents who have had their children in that

institution for a long time. This will return the children to their

home communities and in some cases when there is no parent any longer —

and that happens a lot in these Tranquille cases where the parents have

passed on and there really isn't a family — they will be given a very

good setting and a community-based resource and it will be for the

better all around, I think, for that young person to live in the

community. It's been very successful. I'm pleased with the cooperation.

You're going to hear some criticisms from time to time. There was

one in the Kamloops paper, and it was a columnist who was.... I'm not

going to read the whole thing or even

[ Page 3719 ]

any of it. There was a very long report — four

columns about eight to ten inches long — critical of the haste, etc.,

of closing Tranquille. The answer from a mother and a president of the

Kamloops Society for the Mentally Handicapped.... It was the one that I

think I mentioned yesterday to you. I'd like to read this, because it's

really expressive of what a parent feels. She says it better than I or

you could say it. I'm quoting from her letter of response to the very

critical column:

"Who is going to benefit? Definitely the residents. The

very fact that they will wake up each morning in their own bedroom in a house

occupied by a normal-sized 'family' group rather than in a hospital

setting with 330 other people will be an improvement. "I wonder how 'normal'

Mr. McRae would be if he lived in a similar setting."

You know, I think

that says it all.

We won't apologize for the time-frame. I will tell you why the

time-frame: Tranquille needed a lot of financial investment to improve

it. Some has already been done, but the physical plant needs millions

of dollars invested in it if it's going to be used for this purpose. We

had a commitment to everyone that we would deinstitutionalize within

the next ten years. We didn't say "in ten years"; we said "within the

next ten years."

Considering the lobby that has gone on in this province for a very

long time by the association which you mentioned, British Columbians

for Mentally Handicapped People, it surprises me that we've had any

criticism at all from those sources. They were very aggressive in

trying to get us to make that policy statement, and we made it. We are

committed to deinstitutionalization within ten years. So the closing of

Tranquille has not been hasty; we planned to do it. It has been

hastened by the deterioration of the physical plant and the need for a

massive expenditure of funds.

So I refer back to the question on PIRT and the question on

Tranquille and the deinstitutionalization. I tell you that we will look

back on this year — a year of restraint — as the most aggressive year

of deinstitutionalization that probably this province has ever seen or

will see, and we should be proud of the fact that we can do it in this

time. It really is not a cost-saving measure, because, as you well

know, providing these community-based services is a very costly thing.

I want to refer to the aid to the B.C. association you asked about.

Their funding was $60,000. They have always been good at raising their

own funds and have a capability of raising their own funds. It was

thought that the funds should be used for direct services to the

mentally handicapped. This year the direct services, or at least the

numbers of dollars in a whole range of things — life skills program

achievement centres, Chance, special needs day care, infant development

program, residential programs of all kinds and also institutional care

— will increase from a $118 million budget to a $128 million budget.

Are we putting more money into the services for the mentally

handicapped? The answer is yes: $118 million to $128 million in one

year.

MR. BARNES: At the risk of filibustering the minister's

estimates, I'll try to respond briefly. Actually I just want to get

some response for the record. I appreciate the details, however,

because this will provide myself and others in the community an

opportunity to review the government's thinking, and I'm sure that as

the weeks and months go by, we'll be in a position to refer back to

them. So I do appreciate the details the minister has given.

She indicated that the federal government's guaranteed income

supplement had not normally been passed on except by her government.

I'm not certain of how accurate that is, but I can say that the Mincome

program was introduced during the New Democratic Party government and

changed the whole approach. GAIN, as you know, the present Guaranteed

Available Income for Need program, is a result of the Mincome, so if we

got into that debate, we'd be here all afternoon.

I would like to ask one final question. I knew I'd get to it

eventually. This question has to do with the community involvement

program that was available at one time to a large number of people. The

minister said when the program was terminated last year that she would

be introducing that program, and I'm sure she will want to comment on

it now. As I read it, the minister has replaced that program with

something drastically different. She can, of course, respond to that.

The previous community involvement program that was available paid

unemployables on income assistance. It paid physically or mentally

disabled. It included single parents with two children under 12 years

of age, or one child under 6 months. It included single parents with

physically or mentally disabled children. They were allowed to perform

about 20 hours of work for a community program. The new program, as I

understand it, excludes that group I just read. It includes only a

person who is certified under the GAIN act as being physically

handicapped. Obviously there are no objections to that program for that

category, but the point is: compared to what was there before, there

has been a major shift and a change in their.... It is a problem that

many people feel should be corrected.

The minister will recall my asking her a question sometime last year

with respect to contracted CIP — those persons working in an agency at

$50 per month whc, had contracts. Apparently not all CIP were under

contract, but there were some. One particular contractee was a worker

by the name of Denis Jensen, who was represented by a lawyer in the

city of Vancouver following a rejection by the Ministry of Human

Resources to appeal the termination of his contract. As a result of a

hearing in Supreme Court by Justice Callaghan, the right to appeal was

confirmed resulting in Mr. Jensen's successful launching of an

application for his appeal. In view of the decision of Judge Callaghan

last year, will the minister now make retroactive payments of $50 per

month to those former CIP recipients who had filed an appeal with the

ministry, and who were under contract? It may be that those who were

not under contract have a case as well. I would like the minister to

comment on that, because I'm sure that it reflects our concern about

the haste with which the government proceeds in its decisions. In this

case it was too hasty, because obviously the government suffered some

embarrassment. They had violated contractual commitments with these

people. Consider that these people were, as I've just explained,

obviously in need, receiving $50 per month and working 20 hours for it,

and that the $50 is cost-shared by the Canada Assistance Plan; in other

words, the government is paying only $25 of the $50. In terms of

cost-saving, the government was in fact bypassing an opportunity to

have this extra income from the federal government in providing these

programs.

I would like to have the minister respond before I make one final representation. If she can do that in a concise way,

[ Page 3720 ]

then I will respond in kind. However, I would appreciate it if she does whatever she feels is appropriate for the occasion.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in the court case that the

member brings to the House, the court ruled that the CIP payment was

income assistance and that it was appealable to a tribunal. That was

the court's decision. I'm not aware that it was ever taken to a

tribunal. The question is.... It would have to go to a tribunal from

there. The court really didn't rule that it should or shouldn't be

paid. They didn't make that decision. They just said it was appealable

because of income assistance.

[3:30]

Let's go back to the original intent or the idea of CIP. When I

introduced the estimates, I told you that we were reinstating it

possibly a little differently. Still, for those we are most concerned

about, those who we wish to give some sense of confidence to, with some

help to become independent by first working a few hours in an

organization which would give them a bit of self-confidence, I

mentioned that that program will be reinstated. The notice was given

back in July, I think, that all of the agreements that were outstanding

to the end of March were to be honoured. You and I debated that. Well,

we didn't debate it; we agreed last year that that should be so. The

new program will dovetail with the end of those agreements and will be

available in the new fiscal year.

I don't know what else I can say except that I am pleased about

that. I think it's good that we've been able to reinstate that in a

recession year. I was working towards that all last year and I'm

pleased to tell you that that is so.

One of the questions I didn't answer was from your last query. You

asked if I responded to the letter from the B.C. Association of the

Mentally Handicapped. I met with them in my office and we went through

every aspect of the letter, and from the good meeting that we had I

think they were well satisfied with the deinstitutionalization of

Tranquille — the steps we were taking and what we were doing. That

wasn't too long ago, maybe within the last month — certainly since that

letter was written. I think that covers it, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BARNES: I just want to say that I agree with the minister

that British Columbians for Handicapped People of the province of

British Columbia.... That's the new name; it's no longer the B.C.

Retardation Society, or Mentally Retarded. It's changed its name. In

any event, I'm sure they do not want to be misunderstood, because

obviously they are in favour of decentralization and have campaigned

for it. They are only concerned about the orderly decentralization

process, as are most people. I do laud the government for its

initiatives in this regard, and I think they should continue. We are

just concerned about its being done well. There is no question about

the remarks you made; I just want to associate myself with those.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read into the record some facts

concerning the cutbacks. It will just take a minute or two. It is with

great regret that these events have had to happen, because they have

been, as we all know.... Since the last election we have heard many

announcements from the government with respect to cutbacks, and you

could say that we have been really rocking and reeling in this province

as a result of them. The list is long; nonetheless, here it is for the

record.

The cutbacks and program changes are as follows:

Community involvement program eliminated August 31, 1983: 2,500 at

$50 per month, which was shared, as I said, with the federal

government. That is of course being reintroduced now at a much lesser

effect. Seniors' day centres, 23, funding terminated March 31, 1984.

Renters' tax credit for 1983 tax year, abolished. Personal income tax

credit, 1983 tax year, abolished. British Columbia housing rental

increase: the amount went from 25 percent of income to 30 percent of

income. That's the B.C. Housing Management Commission. Family support

workers: 259 positions affecting 226 people, terminated October 31,

1983. Program coordinators terminated October 31, 1983.

Income-assistance coordinators, mental retardation coordinators, 14,

family and child service coordinators: all terminated. Rates were

frozen for GAIN income assistance, GAIN for handicapped, foster care

and SAFER in July 1983. Provincial in-service resource team, which we

just discussed, eliminated October 31, 1983: five workers. These were

for disturbed and disabled children. Post-partum counselling: five

positions terminated October 31, 1983. In-home service, which involved

35 positions on the lower mainland responsible for mothers' help and

seniors, terminated October 31, 1983. Twenty-four child care resources

in Vancouver are to be privatized. As we know, that started in

February; as of March 31 those will no longer be under the direct

control of the government. Vancouver Transition House is to be

privatized at the end of this month. Community projects funding is cut

back. Family and child assessment teams — this is specialized child

abuse — eliminated October 31, 1983. Nutritionist program, five in the

lower mainland eliminated October 31, 1983.

Community projects: B.C. Association of Persons with Handicaps

training grant of $50,000 was cancelled last July 9. Fifteen of the

child-care counsellors in Vancouver schools are being terminated as of

June this year; these will apparently be recontracted out to the school

board and others will go to private contractors. The Pharmacare

deductible for universal Pharmacare was raised from $125 to $175 in

this budget. The GAIN changes, effective as of April 1, reintroduced

the age category. Support allowances paid to single persons and couples

without children under 25 years of age were reduced. Earnings

exemptions will not be applicable until the recipient has been on

assistance for eight months. Persons awaiting unemployment insurance

will only be eligible for emergency assistance. This is all contrary to

the primary purpose of the GAIN act, which is to prevent poverty,

neglect and suffering. As a result, I will just recall the remark of

the minister some time ago, when she found it necessary to remove the

CI program and said: "What's $50 in the long scheme of things."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I did not. That's not true.

MR. BARNES: What did you say?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Sit down and I'll tell you what I said.

MR. BARNES: No, tell me from your seat what you said. The

minister says she did not say: "What's $50?" It was in all the papers.

I only want to deal with the facts, Mr. Chairman, and if the minister

is now saying that she thinks $50 is pretty important, I agree with

her. This is why we

[ Page 3721 ]

wanted to have the program in the first place, and keep it intact.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'm just not sure. But you, of course, can set the record straight.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, it was in the paper. Do you deny it?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, I can tell you that you certainly

weren't anxious to respond to our request to leave it in place.

Whatever the reason was, you removed it — whether it's important or not.

I just want to make one simple motion, Mr. Chairman, and we will let

the facts speak for themselves. I move that vote 39 be reduced by the

amount of $50. I think that is in keeping with the minister's views on

the $50 payment to those CIP people.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr.Chairman, I would

suggest that the motion is highly irregular. I know that in these

committees we have many times had a reduction in a vote, sometimes to

$1 and sometimes by $1, but the motion before us today is highly

irregular.

MR. HOWARD: I think if Your Honour were to review the record,

you would find that we reduced an item to $5 once — that was the price

of a show. On one occasion it was $4.33; $1.49 on another occasion; and

other figures. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture was in the

chair on many of those occasions as Mr. Speaker when those motions were

put to reduce votes by varying amounts. Fifty dollars is just as much

in order as $1.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I seldom sat in committee when I was Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the amendment is in order and I will call the question.

[3:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Sanford

Gabelmann

Rose

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Barnes

Lockstead

Hanson

Brown

D'Arcy

Skelly

NAYS — 26

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Michael

Ritchie

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Parks

Reid

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 39.

MR. HOWARD: I just have a few things to say on this

particular vote. I'd particularly like to extend my own and, on behalf

of my colleagues, our most grateful congratulations and appreciation to

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) for the excellent

job he did in dealing with these estimates.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, in order to let the

second member for Vancouver Centre get here, let me just add my

congratulations, too, to the other member for Vancouver Centre, who has

been a very fair critic, I'd say, in this last estimate.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question, and unfortunately I had to leave the room. The minister sent me a note....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I had to leave the room.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. It happens to everyone.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, although I'm not sure that that defence helped me any.

I just want to ask the minister whether the case is now closed as a

result of the fact that that worker is no longer with the ministry.

Does that mean that the case is closed, or is some more work still

being done on it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, the case is all closed. It has been taken care of. I can give you the further details later.

Vote 39 approved.

[ Page 3722 ]

Vote 40: ministry programs, $1,281,215,544 — approved.

On vote 76: transit services, $75,500,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The chair recognizes the hon. member for Atlin. [Applause.]

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would accept a draft.

MR. REID: Is that a beer?

MR. PASSARELL: A draft beer or a draft bank note. Isn't this

nice, to be able to stand up and have this kind of friendly atmosphere

here? It's only a shame that the second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) wasn't here.

On vote 76, the transit services, I have just a couple of short

comments before I turn it over to my colleagues. Last year's budget of

$86,600,000 is down to $75,500,000, a drop in transit service of

approximately $11.1 million or 15 percent. The estimate on the vote

itself covers three particular areas. The first one is the custom bus

services. This sub-vote covers contributions for the disabled in the

urban area. The vote this year is the same as last year, and I

appreciate the minister for not cutting back in the custom bus service

for disabled people, which is extremely worthwhile and a necessary and

essential service for the disabled people in the lower mainland who

have to depend on the custom bus service.

On the other two aspects of the vote, the second one is

contributions to B.C. Transit; this is for urban public passenger

service. I asked a question the other day in regard to the increase in

cost of urban passenger service, which is going up from 75 cents to

$1.25. In a sense, Mr. Chairman, during this recession this is an

increased cost to the poor. When I'm down here in the Legislature in

Victoria, I notice the number of people who travel on the buses,

particularly in Victoria, and I find that the majority of passengers

are female. Statistics Canada shows the figures of employment and cost

to females in our society at the lower end of the scale. I wonder how

the minister will explain a 67 percent increase in bus fares in the

mainland during a time of difficulty for a lot of individuals who are

going to work. A good phrase last week was that sometimes we don't talk

enough about the employed and talk too much about the unemployed. Here

is one issue about the people who are employed in this province and the

increased cost of bus fare.

Another aspect on this.... I know we'll be dealing with Bill 10

right after this in regard to transit also, which is the bill the

minister brought in, but a concern I have, Mr. Chairman — I was going

to ask a question about it last week, but I just didn't have the time —

is in regard to the Fraser Valley and the bus service in regard to the

sale of PCL in the Fraser Valley. What assurances can the minister give

that transit from that growing area in this province will continue so

that individuals won't find themselves strapped getting into the

downtown areas? It is an increased cost, but it is a worthwhile

service, and the sale of PCL could cause problems for individuals who

live in that particular region of the mainland. That's one question

where I hope the minister will state that there would be continuing

progress, and assurances that there will be no cutbacks in bus service

from the Fraser Valley into Vancouver.

The third aspect of vote 76 on transit service is the provincial

transit subsidy. As we all know, the PCL is in the process of being

sold, and last year $7.1 million was contributed by the province to the

urban bus service. This year, with the sale of PCL, there is nothing,

which makes sense. But my concern, as I mentioned about the Fraser

Valley and the PCL, is that we've cut back $7.1 million from the

budget, and what services are going to be restored to people in the

Fraser Valley as well as through the zonal aspects of B.C. Transit?

Another question to the minister. With the sale of PCL, does the

minister believe that the province is going to make a profit? I know we

can't sell the assets of PCL and then not acquire some type of a

profit, but since PCL was purchased more or less with taxpayers'

dollars, can the minister give assurances to the House that we are

going to gain some type of profit from the selling of PCL?

Another aspect on the transit service estimates that has come up in

the last few weeks is the controversy surrounding bus service with the

closing of the motor vehicle inspection branch, and the responsibility

for safety in this province. I know the minister has given a detailed

statement to a comment I had directed to her last week, and I

appreciate it; but now more and more responsibility will be placed on

the private sector in continuing safety of buses. Whether it's the

public sector or the private sector, I don't think that bus safety

should be pushed to a secondary category. I would hope that the

minister can guarantee the safety of the general public when it comes

to the closing of the motor vehicle inspection branches.

[4:00]

On the matter of B.C. Transit, I have a letter dated February 3,

1984, signed by Larry Ward, assistant general manager, B.C. Transit. It

is one paragraph, and I would like to read a part of it into the record.

"A forecast of Vancouver regional transit expenditures,

system revenue and local tax revenue for 1983-84 compared to the original budget

is provided in the attached table. Due to a lower level of expenditure being

experienced than was originally anticipated when the budget was prepared, coupled

with an underestimation of interest revenues and 1982-83 surplus local revenues"

— and this is the part of concern to me, Mr. Chairman — "it is expected

that the local transit fund will have a surplus of $4,341,488 at the end of

the 1983-84 fiscal year. The reduced level of expenditure is also expected to

allow B.C. Transit's financial obligations to be met with the level of approved

funding."

My concern is with this $4 million surplus from last year. What

plans does the minister have to use this surplus? Is it going to

purchase new buses, to continue bus services in the lower mainland on

the routes that are provided by B.C. Transit at this time?

Another aspect, and I won't read this entire letter into the record.

In one from the Independent Canadian Transit Union they are talking

about some of the transit services being cut. ".... . Slashed, And

There Are More Cuts Planned, " is the title, and they are asking why

there is standing room only on your bus, or why two full buses passed

you by before you finally got to.... . or stood when you had to wait an

hour for your suburban bus, or why it takes you longer and longer to

get into Vancouver. I will quote some figures from the transit union. I

am sure my honourable friend from Surrey will probably refute some of

the figures in this, but it states some

[ Page 3723 ]

of the cutbacks to B.C. Transit and MTOC. It is

talking about 231,648 fewer hours of service this year over last year.

It seems a lot of hours to be cut back. The few times that I've taken

the bus when it has become a necessity because of being down in the

mainland while my truck is still up north, I've noticed during rush

hour periods the extreme crowding on the bus. It does take a long time

sometimes to get back into the suburbs. I would like the minister's

comments on some of these cutbacks that the Independent Canadian

Transit Union is speaking about.

Another aspect I would like to talk about before we get on to Bill

10 — some comments will be made about the real estate aspect of the

station surrounding the ALRT, which will be left for the bill — is the

sale of Pacific Coach Lines. The following companies are taking over as

of March 31, 1984. Pacific Coach Lines has provided an essential and

good service in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island, and now it has

been sold to four different companies: Maverick Coach Lines, Gray Line,

Cascade Charter and International Stage Lines. It did provide excellent

passenger service and had a good reputation for the quality of its

service and drivers. The few times I took the coach line and crossed

over to Vancouver from the capital, I always found excellent

cleanliness on the coaches.

As I mentioned earlier regarding the PCL, is the province going to

make a profit from the sale? I certainly hope the province isn't

selling the assets of a company — a Crown corporation per se — that did

provide excellent service in the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland,

and on Vancouver Island....

Interjection:

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, I had mentioned that earlier, but one of

my concerns is with Expo 86 coming upon us and the government's policy

in regard to Expo 86 and the slogans. I'm wondering why they are

selling the PCL at this time. Can the minister give assurances to this

House that areas in the Fraser Valley, the lower mainland and

throughout Vancouver Island won't suffer because of the sale of the PCL?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: We're going to start this again with my

honourable friend. It must be a disease you pick up once you serve a

little while in Ottawa — lip jaundice or something like that.

I have a number of other questions to ask the minister, but I don't

want to get too many questions directed to the minister at one time.

Sometimes they get lost in the shuffle. I would appreciate a response

to the seven or eight questions that I directed to the minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I thank the members for their interest in B.C. Transit.

First of all, I would like to say, so that the member can be

apprised and ready, that the bill we're going to be debating sometime

on the floor of the House is Bill 10. It has nothing to do with real

estate. ALRT has reference to real estate. So if he has some questions

on real estate that he wants answered, this is the time to do it, not

during the bill.

One of the best services for the handicapped in this nation is the

one that the member has drawn attention to. We're very proud of that

service and it is truly held up as a model throughout North America.

You asked about the budget dollars. The service itself has been

expanded, and the added funds are for subsidizing fares. I think that

answers the question.

The second question was one which interests the chairman of our

committee. I have had a great deal of interest expressed by the member

for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), because of the concern regarding the sale of

PCL and how it affects the Fraser Valley. Other members of this House

have also expressed concern. So it's timely that we mention that we did

have bids for three portions of the overall line. We are pleased to

tell you today that there are several applications pending at the Motor

Carrier Commission to fill the void which the member has brought to the

attention of the House. Members such as the member for Dewdney and the

member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) have spoken to me about the

Fraser Valley routes. By the time we get to the end of this month,

which is the magic date when the turnover of PCL and the subsidy ends,

I am pleased to tell you that we think we'll have a solution. We're

very optimistic that we will. It has taken a lot of work by a lot of

people to bring that to fruition.

The subsidy is the saving, talking of profit in the Pacific Coach

Lines sale. Each and every year, as you know, there is a $7 million or

$8 million subsidy — it was very much higher than that before these

last two or three years. But that will be the greatest saving to the

taxpayers — the greatest profit, if you like. Certainly there will be

some cash when the transaction is finished, when the assets are sold,

etc. May I assure you that when the total deal is complete, all of the

information regarding how much money was made on it and so on will be

made public as soon as possible after the sale is complete. I can make

that commitment to you at this time, but I can't give you the figures.

I will be pleased to do that.

The question of safety is very important to all of us. Motor vehicle

branches were not responsible for buses, with the exception of the

Victoria area. The motor vehicle inspection branch does not affect our

bus safety, but BCT has an inspection program throughout the province.

Again, I would like it to be known that the new owners of PCL will be

using the very effective safety facilities, which they have arranged to

lease and then perhaps to buy in the future — certainly to lease the

facility for the next five years — with the same staff and the same

excellent service that has been given to the PCL buses heretofore. I

think that has been well looked after in the sale, and we have been

able to.... I think we can assure you that the sale has been taken care

of. Of course, B.C. Transit insists on that safety standard in all of

the buses throughout the province. That will be adhered to in the

future as it has been in the past.

You talked about the $4 million. We did collect $4 million more than

we needed because of the efficiencies that the board has been able to

effect in the system. Let me pay tribute to two members of this House

for the help that they have been able to give me and B.C. Transit. The

member who has just taken his seat has made reference to both ALRT, the

new rapid transit facility which we are building — a very exciting

program — and also he has made comment about MTOC and the bus systems

in Vancouver and Victoria. I want you to know that a lot of the success

for both of those has been because of the very able people who have

worked with me. I have mentioned both members for Surrey who at one

time served on the board: the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston),

who no longer serves on the MTOC board, and the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Reid), who is the chairman of

[ Page 3724 ]

that board and continues to devote a lot of his

time to that very effective and much appreciated board. Also, my

colleague for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has had one of the

most effective committees in our rapid transit program. We are very

appreciative of the work that he has done working with many city

councils. It is no mean feat having put together a rapid transit line

in the short time that we have had. I want to pay tribute to those

members who have served so capably and the boards they serve with, and

I'd like the House to recognize that service, as I do every day that I

work with them.

[4:15]

On that point I want to also say that we are very fortunate that we

have some good people in all of the systems. As I mentioned, the $4

million was able to be gleaned from the system through efficiencies,

and that $4 million, because of efficiencies, will be used to offset

next year's cost at the local level. In other words, we will be able to

reduce costs in the local communities because of those savings. You

wanted to know if it would buy buses, etc., but the answer is that it

will help offset the local share.

Could I just address the business of standing room only on buses.

All through North America — and certainly if you had seen the newscast

on the Japanese system.... People stand on buses all over the world,

and the cost of removing that would be prohibitive. I don't think we're

ready to address that this year, and probably not for many years to

come. They stand in buses all over the world, and experience shows that

we haven't had any problems in that regard.

You referred to rush hours. There has been no diminution of

rush-hour service. We are tailoring the hours to the ridership, and

when you see hours reduced, it's because of reduced ridership. I know

that no member of this House wants us to run buses that only have one

or two people in them. They want it to be an efficient service — and an

efficient service it is, Mr. Chairman.

B.C. Transit has had an agreement with Expo, and has been working a

long time on this, and we have a very good working relationship with

the principals of Expo 86. When that tremendous fair, with 18 million

to 20 million visitors, takes place, a lot of transportation is going

to be needed. A great deal of service will be provided. B.C. Transit

has an agreement with Expo to facilitate and organize that. They will

be working with both our own and private bus services in that regard,

and when that happens and the fair hits the city of Vancouver for six

months, there will be a smooth transition.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's comments, and am taking some notes on some of her statements. I agree with

the minister on the efficiency, but what I don't agree with, in talking

about the $4 million surplus, is the aspect of reduced costs that you mentioned.

I think anybody who has had anything to do with something like B.C. Transit

understands that reduced cost.... If we're having a reduced cost, why

then the increase in the fares from 75 cents to $1.25?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: They're zonal fares, that's right. But if we

have a $4 million profit, and we're talking about efficiency, why

increase bus fares 67 percent in these times of restraint? It is

difficult enough for a lot of single parents or individuals, or even

the unemployed people who have to go out and look for jobs, to have to

pay an additional 67 percent in zonal fares.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

Another comment I'd like to make is about the annual service plan

from B.C. Transit, dated October 1983. It talks about performance

targets: ridership is 89,000,000 for this year, and next year,

90,000,000, up approximately 1 percent; service hours, 2,700,000 down

to 2,600,000; service kilometres, 54,900,000 down to 54,000,000;

efficiency.... I look at some of the short-term planning activities.

They talk about discontinuing evening and Sunday service on the beach

route due to low ridership and the existence of alternative....

I understand that you have to cut back on an aspect of this.

Firstly, bringing Sunday and holiday mid-day service in line with

loading standards. Secondly, adjusting late-night service after

midnight in line with passenger demand. I understand that you just

can't have a bus running at 3 o'clock in the morning back and forth if

nobody is going to get on it. I understand that part, but what I don't

understand, and wish the minister would give me some indication on, is

some of the long-range planning activities of B.C. Transit with the $4

million. The first one is North Burnaby, the second is UBC, and the

third one they make reference to in this report is North Vancouver.

I would just like to read this quote after these three route

scheduling plans: "The implementation of the service plan in its

entirety, and accordingly the

schedule identification in this report,

will result in achieving the primary objective of accommodating a

projected 1 percent increase in transit ridership demand, while at the

same time improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit

system." Great, but my concern is with your $4 million. Why the

cutbacks in some of the routing and also some of the services provided

by B.C. Transit? We've seen some drivers laid off because of low

demand, and I'm wondering why the cutting back when it seems that more

and more people are using our bus system.

I'd like to make a second comment on this report by B.C. Transit

that was signed by Larry Ward. It said the tax on gasoline was $15

million last year and $13 million this year. How did you achieve a $2

million savings in the gas tax? If you have something, I'd sure like to

be able to pass it on to some of the people up in my constituency — not

that you've cut back, but you've saved $2 million in gas tax. I'd sure

like to know how we in the north could save....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, you're saying that you've cut back on

the consumption here on the routing schedules. You're cutting back on

kilometres travelled by the buses themselves; you're down in service

kilometres from 54,900,000 to 54,000,000 — you've dropped 900,000

kilometres of service.

MR. REID: You're talking about surcharge on gasoline, Al, versus consumption of diesel fuel. It's not in your....

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you for the side comments there.

Interjection.

[ Page 3725 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Okay. Thank you, I'd appreciate that.

Those were a few more questions that I direct to the minister. I

appreciate the minister's statement in regard to ALRT and real estate.

A concern I had was a package distributed by B.C. Transit regarding

real estate around the testing stations, approximately an eight-page

report in which it used references....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: About testing stations?

MR. PASSARELL: I'm sorry; not testing stations, but the stations on the routing itself.

It was approximately an eight-page report, which was basically from

the United States and other world capitals where they have rapid

transit, and it talked about how the real estate is a good profit. I'm

wondering if you're devoting a lot of time to selling real estate

around the transit stations, because I would hope that the government

wouldn't be into the real estate business while they're trying to find

hundreds of millions of dollars — almost $1 billion — for the ALRT

stations. If you're distributing this type of real estate brochure, it

could be a bit more reliable in regard to Canadian real estate instead

of talking about real estate in Tokyo or in the United States. Those

were a few more questions I had, and I have a couple of colleagues who

would like to address comments to the minister regarding transit in

their areas of the province.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The published information that is

available, and which is asked for by people who are in the business of

developing property, is only in reference to other countries or other

provinces, because we haven't had the experience. That's why it refers

to other places. But also it's given on request and is only for

realtors. No, we are not in the real estate business. We don't plan to

get into it. The sleeping giant of the lower mainland is the rapid

transit line, because it means tremendous job creation opportunities.

As has been proven over and over again throughout the world, for every

place in Burnaby, New Westminster and Vancouver where there is a rapid

transit station, the surrounding area for very many blocks around will

have tremendous development. It means jobs, it means construction, and

it means a whole new way of life for those communities. It gives a

capability for us to have just a potential for job creation for very

many years to come, not just at the very first flush of a line going

through.

Let me give you an example. In Metrotown Burnaby, where my colleague

from Burnaby-Willingdon has a station, just the other night when we

were there we were announcing we have two stations in that

constituency. In those stations there's now, right this minute, on the

drawing-board, $1 billion worth of new development. That's just the

beginning. People in Burnaby, even seeing the line go through, don't

even understand what it will do to the whole of the lower mainland. You

can see it go up, but until those trains start carrying those thousands

upon thousands of people — not just to Burnaby but from Burnaby to

other parts of the lower mainland — this exchange of commerce and this

economic impetus is just going to be fantastic for the province and for

the people in those areas.

Please let me tell you that we're not in the real estate business.

We'll put the line there, and we'll let the private sector and the

private investors and the private developers and the people of British

Columbia, with their investment money, make sure that that development

goes on. We don't want to be in the real estate business.

The gas tax. This surcharge is based on the volume of gas sold. When

that volume goes down, we get less. It doesn't have anything to do with

us purchasing gasoline. It has to do with the surcharge. Our return is

less when the sales are less, and because of the economy there's been

less gasoline sold. It's just a reflection of the economy.

The zonal fare service introduces quality to the service in the

lower mainland. There is a necessity for more dollars to be put into

the system. For example, the lease of the new trolleys comes into

effect in this coming fiscal year '84-85 at a cost of $4.5 million.

That's just one cost I can tell you about off the top. There is a

rationale, the board of directors felt, to bring the fare structure in

the city of Vancouver in line with other metropolitan cities. It is not

in line now, and it will bring it in line. Again, it's tailoring the

fare to meet the ridership and also the usage. It's tailoring it to the

demand. We haven't laid off any bus drivers in Vancouver or Victoria.

You made that comment. I understand from the chairman of MTOC that we

have laid off two. Is that right?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not for two years? Oh, I thought you were

putting up your hand that we laid off two. We have not for two years

laid off bus drivers. The chairman of the board should know that,

because that all comes to the board on a very detailed basis. I don't

think the information that you have is correct on that.

I think I've covered everything you asked. I hope I did. If there's anything more I'd be glad to answer it.

[4:30]

MR. ROSE: I have a couple of minutes of remarks, and I would like to proceed with them while the minister is here.

I happen to represent a suburban riding at the very edge of the

extension of the buses. They don't go beyond my riding up the valley,

across the Pitt River. They just go to Port Coquitlam. The whole

business about the PCL not being able to serve the Fraser Valley is of

interest to me, but not as much interest to me as it was once, because

it's not my responsibility to go beyond the Pitt River or the Wild Duck

Inn, which we use as a marker. I received a phone call the other day

about a man who rides the buses. He's an office worker; he goes

downtown from Port Coquitlam every day. He has been doing it on the

buses for a number of years at 75 cents a shot, and now, because of a

new zonal arrangement coming in, he's facing $1.25 each way per day. A

great number of people riding the bus into Vancouver, including my own

son-in-law, are faced with the same thing.

I don't want this day to go by without my being able to stand up

here and protest this on behalf of my constituents, because they will

want me to do this. We have a large ridership, we have a large bus

assembly yard in Port Coquitlam and a lot of buses emanate from Port

Coquitlam, but with the new zone arrangement the increase is going to

be, as my friend said, about 67 percent. It's going to amount to

probably $2.50 a day, and the increase is roughly $20 a month. It could

be argued that it's going to be difficult to avoid keeping the

subsidies from getting higher as a result of current costs, but at the

same time, while we're cutting back on people services in education,

welfare and all these other things,

[ Page 3726 ]

we're raising the cost 67 percent for my

constituents and others like them who want to use the buses. They want

to use the buses because they find it an efficient way of proceeding;

they think the service has been good; they are not faced with a lot of

expensive parking downtown; and they're concerned that they get whomped

with a 67 percent increase when other services to people are being cut.

So cut the services, reduce the number of routes, raise the price and

complain then that the reason that you've got rid of some of the routes

is because you had no ridership. That is a circuitous, chicken-and-egg

kind of an argument, and I don't think it's appropriate.

We've got a $4-million surplus, we're told. I know we have an

$80-million subsidy because my colleague the second member for Surrey

(Mr. Reid) just told me. I make no pretence of being a person who is an

expert on the business of buses, and I don't ride the buses myself, but

the people who do are extremely concerned about this. I would like to

say that there are those of us who believe that we should be actually

reducing the cost of ridership on the buses, because riding buses is a

good thing. You don't need as much in the way of roads and other kinds

of services if you encourage more and more people to ride buses; we

were doing that. This is likely to put more cars on the road. Now that

is an unsupportable assertion that we're going to have fewer people.

The point I'm attempting to make is that I think that it will

discourage people from riding these buses, and I think we should be

going in precisely the opposite direction. We should be encouraging

people on the buses, and in my view it's really, at this time, slightly

immoral to do what we're going to do in terms of zoning. I know the

counter-arguments to that; they'll say: "Well, why should somebody

living way out there 30 miles away pay the same as someone, who is

living downtown?" We have postage-stamp rates and other services, you

know, where I think we should be providing urban and suburban services

as alternatives to more roads and bridges. Now we're going to take $175

million and extend the ALRT to Surrey. That's fine. I don't think that

that is unsupportable, but I do feel a little bit unhappy that at the

same time the announcement is coming up for Surrey, that spur that was

to go to Port Moody has received no similar announcement. It doesn't

even go into Maillardville-Coquitlam, as far as I know.

The people in my riding are very dependent on the buses as public

transport. We don't have a deal made with the CPR yet to make certain

that they have that alternative in commuter rail — that's been dragging

and dragging and dragging — and so it occurs to me that what we should

be doing, instead of spending more money on roads and bridges, is

spending money on services to buses to encourage more ridership rather

than what I think is likely to be the reverse — an arrangement that may

put more cars on the road. It's my view — since I don't use the buses —

that people ride buses not because they like to but because they have

to. Anything that discourages them from riding buses should be avoided.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member who has just

taken his place has ended his statement by saying that people do not

ride buses because they want to, but earlier he said they ride buses

because they want to. I suggest there are probably two kinds of

ridership, and I suppose he would agree with me.

He makes the point on behalf of a constituent from Coquitlam who has

paid the 75 cent fare, which will now, because of the zonal fare, be

increased to $1.25. The same point of concern has been made over and

over again in the city of Vancouver, when someone who lives in the West

End has to pay the same amount to go to downtown Vancouver. The board

has looked at this whole situation over the years. In fact, the city of

Vancouver has been adamant over the years that it should be fairer in

the true sense of the word, and that the longer the ride is the greater

the charge should be, rather than having a blanket amount all over. It

will interest you to know that ten years ago that same person would

have paid.... In fact, the fare actually was $1 at that time. So if we

were to take inflation at its rampant best in the past decade, it would

be very much more than $1.25 today had the fares just stayed the same

and increased as everything else did. The cost, of course, in that

decade has certainly accelerated, and for the amount that that person

is paying, that's a very fair charge for that distance.

Let's address your concern about the person who has to go in every

day. They work downtown, they live in Coquitlam or in White Rock, and

they have to go downtown each and every day. They like to ride the bus,

and they want to ride the bus, and in some cases they must ride the

bus. What they are being offered, in this case.... They would obviously

purchase a pass because a pass is $50 a month. It would give them the

full 30 to 31 days of ridership — they could go into town for a

Saturday as well as their five working days. It would give them all the

days of the month for $50. You make the argument that there isn't any

parking area in downtown Vancouver that you can find for that kind of

money. I think the least expensive that I've known in downtown

Vancouver in recent months is about $80 a month. So besides your

gasoline, your wear and tear on your car, your oil and depreciation....

There would be no comparison. There is just no contest with what it is

to ride the bus on a pass.

If you want to make the same analogy, it's still cheaper.... For

example, I understand cigarettes are very close to $2 a package. The

same person who complains about a very good value from Coquitlam to

downtown will still continue to destroy his health by smoking.

MR. ROSE: C'mon, Gracie.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That's another argument, I know. But at

the same time I make the point that it really is a very good bargain.

The bus pass for $50 is a very good purchase, and it is very reasonable

when one considers that across North America it compares very

favourably to other jurisdictions. I think you'll find that will be

acceptable, and when you consider the past decade — when you consider

$1 to $1.25 — it's really very reasonable.

I thank the member for his comments.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm just rising to say a few words

about Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. My father drove Pacific Stage Lines

buses for 20 years of his life, from 1947 until he died in 1967. He was

union chairman for Pacific Stage Lines drivers for 15 years. He was

very proud of the service that he and his fellow workers provided:

drivers, mechanics, sales agents, ticket agents and that type of thing.

His family was also proud of the service that was provided, not simply

under B.C. Hydro, for whom he worked for most of the period, but also

when it was privately owned by a man named Ivor Neil back in the 1940s.

It was then purchased by Dal Grauer and the B.C. Electric Co. and then

later, as B.C. Electric was

[ Page 3727 ]

purchased by the W.A.C. Bennett government .

He worked through the whole period.

MR. WALLACE: It was expropriated.

MR. SKELLY: No, B.C. Electric purchased the service from Ivor

Neil way back in the 1940s or early fifties. But in any case he put a

lot of his life and his time into it and, as I say, he was very proud

of the service. I still know many of the drivers who worked at the time

that my father worked there and are driving that bus line today, even

though my father has been dead for 14 years. I still know many of the

drivers and know of their pride in the service they provided in the

Fraser Valley, Vancouver, Victoria and up and down Vancouver Island. I

think it's regrettable that the service has been broken up and

privatized. The minister answered, in response to a question from the

member for Atlin, about the savings in terms of the subsidy to the bus

line, which amounted to something like $8 million to $9 million a year.

When you look through the budget and the estimates of the provincial

government, there are many, many areas in which we subsidize private

industry. We subsidize them to the tune of much more than we were

paying Pacific Coach Lines to keep that service intact, which was a

very good service. For example, look at the waste management branch of

the Ministry of Environment, which has as its sole function providing

pollution control permits and monitoring pollution control permits for

industry, municipalities and for private enterprise. It costs the

taxpayers of this province close to $9 million to subsidize that

operation every single year. No fees are charged for permits to pollute

in this province; the same is true of pesticide permits. We subsidize

pesticide permits in the province to the tune of half a million

dollars. It seems that there's no general principle applied to

subsidies. We seem to be willing to provide those subsidies when it

comes to pollution control and pesticide permits, but when it comes to

a service that is useful, that is needed and is provided very

efficiently and effectively by the drivers and the staff of Pacific

Coach Lines, this is an area where the government seems to think that

we should get rid of the service by privatizing it.

[4:45]

They don't really seem to care what happens to the employees of the

service. It's those employees that I'm concerned about. I'm concerned,

I guess, because of my family's involvement in that bus line over many,

many years. There have been headlines in the paper recently that out of

all the drivers in Pacific Coach Lines — and mechanics and ticket

agents — very few have been assured any employment in the new

operations. I'm hoping the minister is listening. For these people, who

have invested all of their lives, who have invested more, in fact, than

their time.... They've done more than put in eight hours a day. I think

it's recognized worldwide. For tourists who come to this province, it's

recognized that the courteous service provided by those drivers, the

efficient service that's provided by those mechanics, the safety of the

service and also the courtesy of the ticket agents and sales agents, is

without equal anywhere. I'm concerned about what is going to happen to

the drivers, mechanics and the agents, because these are the people who

have really invested everything to make sure that this group of bus

lines has been recognized across Canada and North America as being

among the best, safest and most courteous. I'm wondering what

provisions the minister has made to make sure that there are some

transition procedures, to make sure that those drivers and employees

are guaranteed employment in any new service that's developed and to

make sure that after 20 and 30 years of service they're not just left

on the bricks to fend for themselves. Those are the people that I'm

really concerned about. What is the minister doing?

Occasionally when a mill shuts down in the province in industries,

such as the forest or mining industries, Canada Employment and

Immigration centres get involved in finding jobs for people. The

companies get involved in establishing committees to make sure that the

people who were formerly employed in those plants get work elsewhere or

are assigned elsewhere or receive early retirement provisions. In any

case, transition provisions are made to guarantee that those drivers

aren't simply left after investing 20 to 30 years of their lives with

that company. I'm wondering what provisions the ministry has made

itself or in conjunction with other ministries to make sure that those

drivers are provided for and to make sure that there is employment

provided for in some of these new privatized operations that succeed

Pacific Coach Lines.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate the question and the

concerns. Always, no matter what the circumstances, we're concerned

with staff that is dislocated in any way. I share the same concern. The

board has made very good provision. It's a very fine compensation

package that has been put together. It gives options. As you know,

first off I have to say that there will be a need for some of that

staff to, of course, be taken over by the new organizations, and I

think that they will certainly work towards that. They've indicated

that they would. But the board has made provisions for a very fair

compensation package. It includes relocation counselling, as well as,

for those who are at the retirement age or very close to it,

opportunities for early retirement and so on. It's a very fair package.

I haven't got details of it with me, but I could get them.

I just felt that when I was charged with the responsibility of

winding up the company.... I certainly agree with you that it's been a

very good service and very well operated. It really was my hope that it

would stay intact in total. I really had hoped that that could have

been put together by the employees themselves, and that would have been

a very good experience, I think. However, that didn't come to pass, and

now the next thing that I had hoped that the board would do — and they

certainly have — is to make fair provision. That is well taken care of.

I'd like to assure the member that that is so.

MR. SKELLY: Well, thanks to the minister for that comment,

but you mentioned the provision for "some" of the staff, and also for

counselling for employment elsewhere. That's not really much of a

provision for somebody who's been involved in the service for 20 or 30

years — to try to seek employment elsewhere. When you're doing away

with one of the major bus companies operating in the province, and

people who have given 20 and 30 years of service, it doesn't really

help to counsel them to try to learn to become welders or to look for

employment as bus drivers elsewhere.

How many of the staff have been provided for in this way? I'm

wondering if the minister has any details. How many people will be left

without employment altogether as a result of this privatization

process? There is one way that the minister could have kept the whole

operation together. But apparently for ideological reasons we see that

the service is going

[ Page 3728 ]

to be sold, and if necessary, to get rid of it, we're going to see it broken up.

It doesn't have to be done. As I mentioned, we are subsidizing other

services of the provincial government. An example is pollution control.

We subsidize that to the same extent annually that we subsidize Pacific

Coach Lines. How many of these drivers are going to be employed in the

successor services and how many drivers, mechanics and ticket agents

are going to be completely left out?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell the member

for Alberni the exact numbers. The reason is that the agreement for

sale is in place for those three places. Other portions of the line are

making applications to the Motor Carrier Commission, but it will be the

Motor Carrier Commission that does the licensing. We don't do the

licensing. The licensing has to be done by the Motor Carrier

Commission. It is they who make the decision.

MR. COCKE: You have no influence in that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, they will make the decision as to

how many will be on those new services, so it's too early to give you

that information. It isn't available, and I can't give it to you at

this point in time.

MR. SKELLY: But the minister has made no arrangements in the

sales agreements or the contracts to provide that those drivers would

be carried from one service to the next?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the agreements are made

separately between the purchasers and the union. That is in their

hands. That isn't anything that I can answer at this point in time.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a very local issue that I would like to

raise. That deals with Valley Transport. The minister may recall that

that particular system was started in the Year of the Disabled with a

sizable grant that enabled the volunteer society in the Cowichan area

to start a bus which has managed by hook or by crook to continue

operating year after year on a sort of handout basis. Every year the

same crisis arises: "The funding is out. Where are we going to get

funding to carry this on?" That service is the only public transit that

we have in the area serving local needs, apart from Pacific Coach

Lines, which, of course, goes up and down the Island Highway. But that

particular service has provided transportation in the Duncan, Chemainus

and Lake Cowichan areas, and it provides it for handicapped people,

shut-ins, older people and seniors. It's a very valuable part of our

whole community.

I picked up the local paper this morning and saw that Valley

Transport is in trouble again. "Funding is running out. What are we

going to do?" Jerry Rothstein, who is the head of the volunteer

association in the valley, is hopeful — Jerry is the eternal optimist

and so far it's paid off. There have been representations made to North

Cowichan municipality, I believe — local government, anyway — to

institute a system under the Urban Transit Authority legislation. I

imagine this would come under the heading of custom bus service, which

I understand has about the same amount of funding this year as last.

But I wonder whether or not the minister can assure us that if that is

the case — if there is some funding being paid to Valley Transport —

that funding will continue under the Urban Transit Authority. If not,

can she tell me what the status is relative to any development of a

transportation system for the area — Duncan, Chemainus, Cowichan, Lake

Cowichan and so on. I know there have been some studies undertaken and

some contact between her and, I believe, the municipality of North

Cowichan, which are involved rather than the regional district board.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I'm not

specifically familiar with that name, but that may well be just a lapse

of memory. I may have had correspondence on it. I think it would be

treated like all others who have a service and make requests of the

board. The board takes those requests and within their capability will

fund them. If the service is needed and we have the dollars to provide,

we will. I'm not clear that we now fund it. Is it funded by us now?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not sure. I think grants are coming now, and I think that the last year they were actually funded from a federal grant.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, we're not familiar with it

and it doesn't strike a note with the general manager of B.C. Transit

either. It is probably a service which started, as all good services

do, by somebody meeting a need. As they require more money to keep it

going, they have grants from different places or even charge the

ridership, etc. When the service becomes sophisticated enough in a

large enough area and demand-driven, they really come to us then and

say: "This service has established a need. There are so many riders. It

is particularly for the handicapped." They make application to us, and

they're dealt with by a board of directors which assesses the need, and

within the moneys available to them they will meet it. I can't give you

assurances, but I will be glad to took into it if you'll bring it to my

attention.

MRS. WALLACE: For the minister's edification, I will repeat

that the service began under the auspices of her ministry at the time

of the International Year of Disabled Persons. A sizable grant was set

aside under that funding, which got us going. Since then it's been a

piecemeal thing. I would like the minister to confirm for my

information if in fact there is no local government involved in

providing a transit service under the Urban Transit Authority. Is the

board still prepared to make a grant separate and apart from an urban

transit system to a specific service such as Valley Transport?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The financing is always done through

either a city council or a regional district. But that would fall under

regional districts, so it would be applicable to that.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to disappoint the minister. She

obviously doesn't want to have her estimates close without some comment

from her favourite opposition member, particularly with respect to

transit.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: When is Emery going to get up again?

MR. LAUK: We run a good-guy, bad-guy routine in Vancouver

Centre — very successfully, I might add. What do we call ourselves?

Coca-Cola — everybody knows us.

[ Page 3729 ]

[5:00]

I want to just mention a few things on transit. It's like pulling

teeth when dealing with Social Credit members, particularly in British

Columbia. The Tory, right-wing people elsewhere seem to have a little

better handle on this than the Socreds, but it's a philosophical as

well as economic concept that I hope is getting home. I know the

minister understands it, but she has trouble dealing with that

neo-simian cabinet that sometimes does not really grasp that we're

moving into the eighties and that the eighties and nineties and the

turn of the century promise some difficult times for us in terms of

transportation.

The reason for that is, I submit, a drastic change in attitude,

based on a number of economic factors, towards the private automobile.

I know the Social Credit government has been dragged kicking and

screaming into the eighties and to face reality, a