1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5899 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

School district budgets. Mr. Skelly –– 5900

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lauk

Education policy. Mr. Rose –– 5901

Manning Park sale. Mr. Mitchell –– 5901

Okanagan bingo operations. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5902

Presenting Petitions

Ms. Sanford –– 5902

Tabling Documents –– 5903

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

On vote 42: minister's office –– 5903

Ms. Brown

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Davis

Mrs. Johnston

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 7). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5919

Mr. Stupich –– 5920

Mr. Davis –– 5920

Mr. Lank –– 5921

Mr. Williams –– 5921

Mr. Cocke –– 5921

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5921

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 12). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5922

Mr. Stupich –– 5923

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5923

Hotel Room Tax Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 13). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5923

Mr. Stupich –– 5924

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5924

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I'd like to

welcome to our galleries this afternoon three teachers from Delta: Mr.

Doug Neale, Ken Peneff and Steve Hanson.

MR. SKELLY: I would like the House to welcome the president

of the BCTF, Pat Clarke, vice-president Elsie McMurphy, and all of

those teachers in the gallery today who do such a great job for

education in B.C.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: In attendance today from Chilliwack and

Agassiz are Doug Steinson, Ted Westlin, Bob Tunbridge and Alan Legg:

teachers all. Please make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Royal City we have two

teachers: the president of the teachers' association in New

Westminster, George Hawksworth, and the past president, Tom Westwater.

Would you please welcome them.

HON. A. FRASER: From the Cariboo — where everything really

started in British Columbia — I'd like to introduce Kerry Heywood, the

president of the Quesnel Teachers' Association, and Rick Cash, a member

of the association. They are from School District 28. I'd also like to

introduce Wayne Rodier, a member of the bargaining committee for the

Cariboo-Chilcotin Teachers' Association from School District 27. I'd

like the House to make them welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: Also with us today are two teachers from Trail

School District 11: Harry Popoff of Trail, Floyd Smith of Rossland, and

from School District 9 Castlegar, Mike Rodgers of Winlaw, B.C., and Rik

Hall of Castlegar. I'd like the House to welcome them to this chamber,

and I hope we show them how we do things here.

HON. MR. PELTON: From the Dewdney constituency, and

particularly from School District 75, from the Mission District

Teachers' Association, we have Mr. Phil Rathjen and Mr. Mike Trask.

From School District 42 and the Maple Ridge Teachers' Association we

have Drusilla Wilson and Gordon Brown. I would appreciate the House

making them all welcome.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, we've got some great teachers in

Burnaby, and seven of them are here today: Richard Hoover, our

president; Patti Jukes; Gordon Smith; Marion Runcie; Dave Carter and

his wife, Nancy Carter; and Gordon Blair. We're lucky in Burnaby, and

we want you all to welcome them.

MR. VEITCH: I had an interesting meeting in the government caucus with

a group of educators this morning, and I think that after an interesting beginning

we got down to some good, constructive dialogue. They are Andy Krawczyk, president

of the North Van Teachers' Association; Warren Hicks from North Van; Sheila

Pither from Vancouver; Maureen Ciarniello from West Van — she's a president

up there; Gordon Blair from Burnaby; Moira MacKenzie from Surrey; Dave Carter

from Burnaby; Brian Porter from Surrey; Richard Hoover, who is the president

of the BTA in Burnaby; Patti Jukes from Burnaby; Gordon Smith from Burnaby;

Tom Westwater from New Westminster; George Hawksworth from New Westminster;

Alan Crawford from Vancouver; and Don Briard from Vancouver. I ask the House

to bid them welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to greet and welcome all

the teachers from Vancouver. I haven't got their names, because while I

missed the Expo party last night, I went to school — Sir Guy Carleton —

where they had a very excellent festival.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's the first time you've missed a party in years.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and I missed that champagne. I'd have had trouble developing a champagne taste.

I greet the Vancouver teachers, who are the best teachers in the province, in Canada, in the world.

MR. KEMPF: I take exception to the member saying the best

teachers in the province are in Vancouver, because from the north, from

that breadbasket of British Columbia, we have from School District 54,

Smithers, Mr. Richard Miller and Mr. Michael Scales, and from School

District 55, Burns Lake, Mr. Greg Schneider and Mr. Jim Camps. I'd like

the House to make them welcome.

MR. MacWILLIAM: From the jewel of the Okanagan, the town of

Vernon, I'd like the House to welcome the president of the Vernon

Teachers' Association in School District 22, Mr. Ken Robson, who is

accompanied by another one of my colleagues and a VTA worker, Mr. Horst

Giese. From the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke I'd like the House

to welcome Mr. John Kooistra, Mr. John Pavelich, Mr. Mike Holoiday and

Frank Manning. Also, would the House welcome Lyle Levasseur and John

Tan from Armstrong, and Bill MacFarlane from Revelstoke.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker in a slightly different vein,

I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming to the world Paul and

Troy Davidson, twin boys born yesterday to my daughter Patty and her

husband Glen.

MR. ROSE: I too would like to welcome the delegations of

teachers here today. My own district 43 is headed by Gordon Wickerson,

and other teachers from the same delegation, plus Tom Hutchison of the

BCTF I'd also like to give a generous welcome to any other teachers

from anywhere who haven't been introduced.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have Brian

Porter, president of the Surrey Teachers' Association, along with Moira

MacKenzie. also representing the Surrey Teachers' Association. In the

precincts we have 90 students representing Matheson Junior Secondary

School in Surrey, and visitors from Gloucester High in Ottawa. I would

ask the House to please make them all welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not every day that the member for

Nelson-Creston gets to introduce someone down here, but today it's my

pleasure to introduce a former student of mine

[ Page 5900 ]

who is now president of the Nelson District

Teachers' Association, Mrs. Laura Jacobs, who is accompanied by

Margaret Bonser from the Nelson District Teachers' Association. Also,

this afternoon I look forward to meeting with Charles Granewall from

Arrow Lakes School District and from Nakusp. I wish the House would bid

them welcome.

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, there are no Richmond school teachers here today; they are working in the classroom.

I wonder if we could acknowledge a very significant event. Our

erstwhile Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) yesterday became the

grandfather of identical twin boys.

MR. STUPICH: On behalf of the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace), I would like the House to welcome two teachers from

Lake Cowichan — Elsie Langeler and Eric Lundberg — and one teacher from

Cowichan District Teachers' Association, David Denyer.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon is Sue

Kenney, president of the Cranbrook Teachers' Association, and Jim Hunt.

They're accompanied by Mr. Chris Johns, a teacher from Cranbrook. I

would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MS. SANFORD: There are two teachers here today from two

separate school districts within the constituency of Comox. I would

like to introduce Walter Bergmann from School District 69, Qualicum,

and David Page from School District 71, Courtenay. Make them welcome,

please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Also in the gallery today are teachers

from Merritt, Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Hope and Lillooet, representing

four of the six school districts in my riding. Would the House please

welcome Harry Little, Norm Walker, Dan Strachan, Everett Krider, Dave

Gory, Don Walmsley and Balwant Sanghera.

MR. PASSARELL: From School District 87 we have two teachers:

Kees Van Der Pol from Cassiar and Susan Henderson from Dease Lake; from

School District 92, Nishga, Ravi Gill; on behalf of the Premier, from

School District 23, an old chum of mine from Notre Dame University,

which this government handled so well, Greg Howard.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are

a bunch of students from my riding. This group is from North Island

Secondary School in Port McNeill. They are grade 11 students

accompanied by their teachers, Pat and Kathy Parker.

Also in the gallery today are representatives of teachers in several

school districts in North Island, who are here to make sure that

collective bargaining is given to teachers like everybody else: Linda

Werklund from Vancouver Island West; Michael Kuss and Walter Driscoll

from Vancouver Island North; and Don Bozman from Campbell River.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, there are several teachers here

today from the great constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, and I ask

the House to bid them welcome. I look forward to meeting with them

later on this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, could the Chair remind members that they have an obligation to assist Hansard in whatever way possible with the spelling of their guests' names.

MR. LAUK: I rise under standing order 16, Mr. Speaker the

question of division bells. I wonder if Mr. Speaker can advise whether

division bells ring in either of two places: the Premier's office and

the Expo site in the city of Vancouver.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, on numerous

occasions the Chair and the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre

have had an opportunity to discuss this from various points of view,

the result always being the same. In this case there will be no

difference.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGETS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, in the unexcused absence of the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I'd like to direct my

question to his stand-in. It's our understanding that five school

boards in the province — Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Courtenay and

Cowichan — have submitted budgets which do not comply with provincial

orders. Will the minister confirm that five districts have refused

compliance, and will the minister also advise what action he has

decided to take with respect to those districts?

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of

Education I am very happy to receive that question and tell you that

he's out there working on that now, and he'll bring his answer back

very soon.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of

Education is attending a directors' meeting of B.C. Rail. I'm wondering

what type of solution the minister hopes to achieve with respect to

school districts in the province of British Columbia at a B.C. Rail

executive meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. member?

MR. SKELLY: It's been suggested recently, and some school

districts are concerned, that if they refuse to comply the government

will go to court and have orders issued against those school boards, so

that if they continue to refuse to comply they will be in contempt of

court. Will the Attorney-General advise if a decision has been made

with respect to obtaining court orders against those school districts?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member seeking a legal opinion?

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's not just division bells that have been ringing too long in that member's ears.

I would like to assure the members of the House that the government

considers that all school boards, like all other public authorities in

this province, have an obligation to obey the law; and if that law is

the public schools act of British

[ Page 5901 ]

Columbia, then their firm obligation, regardless of

their conscientious beliefs, regardless of their adherence to doctrine,

is to obey the law. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that

courses of action are being considered, and that we will not permit

anyone in this province, school boards or others, to flout the law.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the

Attorney-General. We now have three laws; I name them quickly. We have

binding arbitration, under the School Act; we have Mr. Peck issuing

binding orders; we have Mr. Curtis, under the administration act. Has

the Attorney-General ever received an opinion that sending out

contradictory signals of that kind creates dismay, demoralization and

confusion in the school system?

HON. MR. SMITH: I would have thought that the member would

have agreed with me that one law that is not difficult to understand or

difficult to read is the

section of the School Act that requires a

budget to be submitted, in accordance with the regulations and laws of

this province, by a certain date in each calendar year. He knows that.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary. I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General this: since the minister has promised a legislative

solution to the confusion and the problems created by three

contradictory laws, when does he expect this legislative solution to be

revealed?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the Attorney-General whether

he's expressing the attitude of the rule of law with respect to the

doctors of this province, who signed a contract with the Ministry of

Health that is now abrogated by Bill 50? Is this the kind of obedience

to the law that the Attorney-General has in mind for the teachers of

the province?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, that is a somewhat ingenious,

artful leap by the member for Vancouver Centre, because he well knows

that one of the functions of the Legislature is to change the law. If a

court decision....

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I may be old-fashioned, but I....

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: A smear on my Teutonic ancestry.

Mr. Speaker, if the chief justice of British Columbia interprets one

of our statutes as not allowing a course of regulation, and we

introduce a bill seeking to remedy that deficiency, it seems to me

we're in the highest spirit of the rule of law, not contrary to rule of

law, and that is what the parliamentary process is about.

EDUCATION POLICY

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister who is

replying for the Minister of Education a question. Since the Minister

of Education has been forced by his government into an inflexible

position where the operation of the schools is in real jeopardy and the

education of students is at risk, what action has the minister decided

to take to keep the schools open and operating?

MR. VEITCH: As I stated before, the Minister of Education will return and that information will be coming in due course and very soon.

MR. ROSE: On a supplementary, the Heinrich policy of ultimatums and deadlines has proved to be a failure....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Education's policy.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, I'll get to it. Just wait for it. I'll be there pretty soon.

Has the minister decided to ask the government to declare a truce in

the political war so that students can be assured of continuing their

education — de-escalating this time bomb? No?

MR. VEITCH: I believe the truce in that political war as far

as education is concerned could begin right here in this chamber. We'd

be a lot better off if we had a lot less political rhetoric from the

opposition and a little more constructive dialogue. I had a meeting in

the government caucus today with certain members of the educational

fraternity, and I believe they're willing to dialogue. They're not

there for political reasons. I would suggest it's time to get on with

education in this province and not political dialogue.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver board and other boards

have already indicated that they would be willing to compromise, but

there is only compromise being offered on one side so far. Is the

parliamentary secretary indicating that the government is willing to

compromise and discuss this matter with the various boards? Because so

far, in the case of Coquitlam, he has refused to meet the board.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has spent

an extensive amount of time going from board to board around this

province and working many long hours dialoguing with people about

education. All you have to do is look at the budget of this province to

see the priority that we put on education; it's one of the great items

that we have on our budget. The Minister of Education will be dealing

with this, and we're working at all times to improve the educational

scene in this province. I suggest that would happen if there's a lot

less political rhetoric and a little more dialogue from the members in

this House, and more constructive thought.

MANNING PARK SALE

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing. Last year the government sold the assets

of Manning Park, which have a value of $20 million, for $500,000 to a

private consortium. Can the minister tell this House if the full

$500,000 was paid in that sale?

[2:30]

[ Page 5902 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Just to be absolutely sure, Mr. Speaker,

I'll check to see the actual transaction. I do recall the figures that

the member mentioned in approximate terms, but I can get you that

answer to that question as to whether the $500,000 was actually

delivered.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports in the local

press in the Manning Park area.... There is a report that the

company that purchased that $20 million asset is flipping it by

reselling it to another company. Can the minister tell if there is

anything in the agreement for the sale and lease which prevents the

owners from flipping this property to new owners?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As the member, I think, already knows, I do

not necessarily accept the press reports as gospel, so I'd like to get

some confirmation on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I have some reason to doubt.... As far

as the flipping goes, the arrangement was with the ministry and the

participant. I would be very surprised, although I'd have to check in

detail or get some legal person to check it, if there's any opportunity

for that person to move that to anyone else without our authorization.

MR. MITCHELL: In view of the importance of this matter, has

the minister decided to table in the House the agreement for sale and

the lease agreements respecting this particular sale?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, a final supplement to the

minister. Was it the decision of this government to sell this asset for

$500,000 to pay for the half-million dollar booze-up they had for Expo

yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

OKANAGAN BINGO OPERATIONS

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Provincial Secretary —

under the B, for bingo or Bennett. Kevin Capozzi of the Dabbers chain

of bingo palaces in the Okanagan has said his operation will bring in

$3 million to $4 million a year, with only 25 percent going to charity.

What action has the minister taken to restore the non-profit charitable

purpose for bingo operations throughout the province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not aware that Mr. Capozzi is in the bingo business.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You should watch the news, Mr. Minister.

According to Mr. Capozzi's statement, his operation will skim somewhere

between $2 million and $3 million a year in bingo proceeds, with the blessing

of the government. This money would otherwise go for charitable purposes. Why

has the minister decided to allow this organized commercial gambling — and that's

what it is — to take place in the guise of charitable fund-raising?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Dabbers bingo parlour in Kelowna does

not hold a licence to operate a bingo. The licence-holders are

non-profit organizations and charitable organizations. The operation in

Kelowna is no different from the Nanaimo operation controlled by the

NDP, which is the largest organization of bingo in all of British

Columbia — two floors with a seating capacity of 700 people — and

collects about $185,000 a year on renting their premises to charitable

and non-profit organizations. Actually they're in the business of

leasing space when they're not operating a bingo themselves — one of

the four NDP groups in Nanaimo. The only difference between the Dabbers

in Kelowna and the NDP operation in Nanaimo is the fact that the

Dabbers is not in the bingo operation business like the NDP is in

Nanaimo; they merely lease or rent space from their building to

nonprofit and charitable organizations.

Presenting Petitions

MS. SANFORD: I have a petition addressed to the hon.

Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in legislature

assembled. The petition of the undersigned, the people of School

District 71 of the constituency of Comox, states that:

"In this time of hard choices, the priority must be

given to the future, to the children. Let all sides be governed by this

principle. Let the provincial government maintain the present 1984

funding level as the minimum level of expenditure until we determine

the future direction of public education. Let the local school board

make the most efficient and responsible use of these funds to meet the

needs of students. Let the teachers teach without unnecessary stress

imposed, but with continued sensitivity. And finally, let the parents

and students be involved in the hard choices and future direction of

our schools.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon.

House give priority to the future — that is, to the children — by

ensuring that all children have the opportunity for quality education."

I submit this petition on behalf of my constituents.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody has advised the Chair that he has a standing order 35 to bring forward.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the matter is the democratic and

orderly operation of the provincial school system, and in particular

the maintenance of education to the children of Vancouver, Burnaby,

Coquitlam, Courtenay and Cowichan — 21 percent of all the children in

British Columbia's public schools, or 100,000 young people. Since

midnight the government has been formally in dispute with the locally

elected school trustees of those districts, which now lack legal means

of raising money to pay their bills.

As this House well knows, lack of supply funding is the most

important problem that could face any elected legislature. The

interests of those children need to be considered front and centre.

Whatever your analysis of how the dispute arose, both sides of this

House will probably agree that it needs to be settled very quickly.

Accordingly, I seek leave to

[ Page

5903 ]

make the motion for the adjournment of the House that makes a positive suggestion for resolving the impasse.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House, mindful of the benefits which

flow from democratic and orderly operation of the public school system,

and in particular the need to maintain education for 100,000 children

of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Courtenay and Cowichan, respectfully

request the hon. Premier of British Columbia to visit the B.C. Schools

Trustees' Association convention, currently at the Hotel Vancouver, and

negotiate an honourable settlement of the government's dispute with the

locally elected school trustees of those districts.

MR. SPEAKER: Without prejudice to the member's case, the

Chair will undertake to review it with a response to the House at the

earliest opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Segarty tabled the 1984 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the 1983-84 annual report of British Columbia Transit.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Human Resources moved adjournment,

so I was under the impression that she had something more to say, and I

was waiting to hear from her, which is the reason I was not on my feet

when that vote was called.

I had prepared quite a detailed response to the minister's

introduction of her estimates, but I am not going to use it, because

when I realized that this minister was a party to and actively involved

in the spending of $500,000 for a cocktail party, Mr. Chairman, at a

time when there are 200,000 people in this province — men, women and

children — in receipt of income assistance, I was so outraged that I

decided that I had to start off by asking the Minister of Human

Resources how she could violate her mandate in such a manner.

Mr. Speaker, that $500,000 could have fed 2,000 income recipients

for 13 months. I don't know if you know it or not, Mr. Chairman, but on

income assistance, research has shown that after all other expenses

have been paid the recipient has something in the neighbourhood of $100

to live on for a month. That works out to something like $3.33 a day

for a child or an adult. And this minister spends $500,000 to buy

champagne and to pay for hors d'oeuvres — to celebrate a very important

occasion; there isn't any question about it. I think the opening of

Expo is important, but I cannot understand why it had to be done in

such an extravagant manner.

There are 1,000 children in this province who were deprived of the services

of family support workers when that minister cut the program because it was

too expensive. Those children could have been serviced, because the salaries

of the family support workers to serve those children for a year would have

come to exactly $500,000. Those are the kinds of alternatives which were facing

this minister when she made the decision to blow $500,000 on champagne and

hors d'oeuvres rather than to feed the children of British Columbia and

see that they were well served.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the vote before us now is vote 42,

the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, and during estimates

debate the committee must be reminded that only debate that relates to

the administrative responsibilities of that ministry is allowed. There

will be other opportunities, I'm sure, to discuss the matter that the

member is currently engaged in, but they are not with us at present. We

are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources, and

none other.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Human Resources is responsible for

the family support program — which could have served 1,000 children —

which was cut to save $500,000 which that minister blew on cocktails

last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not appropriate, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I am relating to this minister's responsibility.

The Minister of Human Resources is responsible for the income

assistance program, which, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, doles out

something in the neighbourhood of $3.33 a day to people in receipt of

income assistance, which means that 2,000 of those people could have

been fed for 13 months with the $500,000 which was blown on cocktails

and hors d'oeuvres last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And once again the member is out of order in

drawing in debate that would be better discussed during another

minister's estimates.

MR. SKELLY: This is the minister responsible for poverty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The government

is responsible for the funds dispensed to all ministries. When one

points out that there is a lack of funds by virtue of the fact that the

government has spent money elsewhere, I believe that that's quite in

keeping with this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Your point of order cannot be accepted. The

Committee of Supply is responsible to the Legislative Assembly for

discussing the administrative responsibilities of the minister whose

estimates are before us. The current estimates before us are for the

Minister of Human Resources. Inasmuch as activities and administrative

responsibilities are covered by that ministry, we can discuss them. If

it's an expense or administrative responsibility of another ministry,

it is out of order. I'm sure all hon. members can understand that. I

will pursue it further if the committee wishes.

[2:45]

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, I'll be very brief, Mr.

Chairman. I'd just like to point out that for the past two years we

have heard speaker after speaker on the government side justify

slashing all sorts of programs in this province on the

[ Page 5904 ]

basis of what they claimed was the government's inability to pay.

That's exactly what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is talking about:

the government's ability to pay half a million bucks for booze.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That may be an intriguing argument, hon.

member, but it is also out of order and not appropriate. We are

discussing, as I said earlier, the estimates of the Ministry of Human

Resources. The debate must be relevant to the expenditures and the

administrative responsibilities of that ministry. There will be ample

opportunity, I am sure, during other estimates to discuss other

expenditures, but at this point the Committee of Supply is discussing

vote 42, and we must restrict our debate and our comments to that

ministry and that vote. Thank you.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, under the family and children's

legislation, that minister's mandate is to act on behalf of the safety

and well-being of the children in her responsibility. It says:

"...shall be of paramount consideration." I put to you that it is not

paramount consideration to cut $500,000 from your budget and deprive

1,000 children of the kind of care they need so that the government can

have $500,000 to blow on champagne and hors d'oeuvres. She is not

disposing of her mandate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, as a point of order, I

would like to have the House know, in relation to the statement that

was just made, that this ministry has had an increase this year in its

budget, not a cut of $500,000. And the $500,000 referred to is from a

paper clipping, where $500,000 to promote jobs for people in this

province is very clearly a good expense of the government of British

Columbia. In this past 49 hours there has been an expenditure which has

brought the international press....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...which will bring some 50,000 jobs...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...to this province, and $3 billion to the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll advise the minister that the minister is

currently entering into the same debate that the Chair has found to be

out of order, and that is discussing an expenditure or an

administrative responsibility not within the purview of the minister

whose estimates are before us. So that we can maybe have a moment to

consider this, I'll remind all committee members of standing order 43,

which advises us of irrelevance and repetition in debate:

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole, after having called the attention of the House or of the

Committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or

tedious repetition, either of that member's own arguments or of the

arguments used by other members in debate, may direct that member to

discontinue speaking and, if the member still continues to speak, Mr.

Speaker or the Chairman shall follow the procedures in Standing Orders

19 and 20."

With that, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds continues on vote 42.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to your

attention, and to the minister's attention, that the sums in the budget

for services to families and children have been cut by $2 million. Two

million dollars have been cut from funds to be spent on children in

this province, but $500,000 can be found for other things. I'm not

interested in being thrown out or punished by you, Mr. Chairman,

because I have a number of things that have to be said. One of the

things that has to be said is that you do not take $2 million away from

children and then turn around and find $500,000 to spend on other

things. That has to be said.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I've lost count of the number of

times we've heard that specific statement. I would suggest that

according to the standing orders, the member should be called to order.

I don't know how many times it's going to be allowed to happen, but I

would think that we should stick with the subject at hand. I would ask

your assistance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure that all members of the committee will

maintain relevant debate, and we will discuss the business that's been

presented to us by the House. We will discuss the estimates of the

Ministry of Human Resources and be relevant to that topic, and to the

administrative responsibilities of that minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in February of this year 236,977

people were in receipt of income assistance from this government. I may

have repeated the misuse of government funds more than once, but there

are 236,977 people who are hurting as a direct result of this

government's misuse of funds. I don't think it can ever become

repetitious or irrelevant to raise that matter on the floor of this

House.

This ministry insists that the recipients of income assistance in

some areas utilize the services of the food banks. This is not a Third

World country. We are not a poor nation, we are not a poor province,

yet food banks in this province have more customers.... The food

banks in Victoria, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, North Vancouver

cannot meet the needs of the people who need their services. At the

same time as that is happening, this government is finding money — and

I know what's going to happen if I say it, so I'm not going to say it —

not to meet the needs of hungry people, not to meet the needs of

children in need, not to meet the need to wipe out the food banks, but

to meet needs which, if there was any way possible for me to raise them

on the floor of the House at this time, I would, because those are

disgraceful needs that this government finds money to meet.

MS. SANFORD: Would that be for fancy beverages?

MS. BROWN: Something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hors d'oeuvres?

MS. BROWN: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess the problem the committee is having is

that we are not struck to discuss the expenditures of the government;

that's done quite abundantly and adequately

[ Page

5905 ]

during the budget debates. We are here to discuss the spending and

the administrative estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources only.

MS. BROWN: And that's what I'm confining myself to: the fact

that $2 million has been sucked out of the budget to serve children and

families in this province; the fact that people in receipt of income

assistance.... I don't think we say this often enough — that when a

single person under the age of 24 first goes on income assistance in

this province, they have $200 a month to meet their needs after shelter

has been paid for. It has been estimated that after they pay

transportation, Hydro and their other expenses, there is something like

$100 left — $3.33. Do you know what I found out when I tried to figure

out what it would be like to try to feed myself on $3.33? The only way

in which it was possible to do that would be if I were eating in the

legislative dining room every day. The reality of the situation is that

nobody, but nobody, can eat on $3.33. That is the reason why, in a

month like we're going through now, which has more Wednesdays in

it.... Imagine that. In a wealthy province like this people have to

count how many Wednesdays there are in a month to decide whether

they're going to starve or not. I would appreciate an intervening

speaker.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First, in response to the question of

sufficiency, I'd like to quote from a survey that was taken not in this

province but by the social planning council in metropolitan Toronto.

They took a look at all provincial jurisdictions; they did an

interprovincial comparison of welfare benefits, and also a

household-type comparison. It's appropriate in today's discussion

because it's dated 1984. It's appropriate because it points out....

The member who has just taken her seat has constantly referred to

the after-shelter income of single persons. It's interesting to note

that British Columbia is not the least; it is not the second least; nor

is it even the third least in benefits. It is interesting to note that

the people who are the worst in the country in terms of providing

income assistance benefits for single persons.... That was the

particular area of interest that the member has been concentrating on:

after-shelter income comparable to the province of British Columbia, in

terms of its standard of living. In Ontario it's $61; in Quebec it's

nothing.

I'm going to give you the amount of money that a single person

receives in Quebec for income assistance. In Manitoba it's $103 —

interesting; that's an NDP jurisdiction. In comparison, as the member

has quoted, after-shelter income in the province of British Columbia is

$115. It's interesting that the member doesn't make any comment about

the NDP province of Manitoba, which is so very much less. Let me just

give you again the figures by province for the single person on social

assistance. This is the monthly benefit for a 25-year-old employable

single person. We're talking about long-term employable people who are

single and 25 years of age. Let me quote the figures for a province

comparable to ours, with a standard of living quite like ours.

Ontario's is $346 for their singles. It's interesting to note that

Manitoba, the NDP province in this nation, is $338. Quebec is $154.

British Columbia is higher than all three of them at $375. If the

member wishes to make comparisons across the nation, we can make

comparisons. We can also tell the truth about what the benefits are

across this nation.

I want to give you another comparison, because I think it is

important. Families are perhaps the greatest concern, because families

are those people who are not mobile, who cannot go from one job to

another, who cannot go from one town to another to seek out a job. It's

interesting to note that the monthly benefits for families on social

assistance — say one adult with one child that would be a single parent

with a child.... A long-term case in the province of Manitoba

receives $562 a month; in the province of British Columbia, $640 a

month. It's interesting that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds did not

make those comparisons.

[3:00]

If you look at other models across this nation, British Columbia

provides exceptionally well for those who are in need. As the member

makes those kinds of comments, I'd be very glad to bring out the income

assistance comparisons that I have at hand. I'd like you to know, for

example, that we spend.... The member has referred to $2 million

being underspent in family and children's services. That's absolutely

incorrect. I'd like to say that it's also knowingly incorrect, because

the member asked a question on the floor of this House during this

session, and I gave her the answer some weeks ago. There's no excuse,

when the answer was given directly to this member, that on the floor of

this House today she should accuse this ministry of having a cutback in

family and children's services.

As a matter of fact. we have in the foster care program an increase

in rates for 4,000 foster parents which come under that particular vote

for services and families, an increase of $700,000. We have an increase

of contracted services. The reason that the child-in-care program

decreased one year over the other — and it was well explained to this

member in a past question — is that there are fewer children coming

into care. The demographic changes are such that it has affected the

workload — the child-in-care caseload. Underspending is primarily in

foster maintenance payments and contracted resources, because there are

fewer children coming into care. Even with politics aside and the

difference in philosophies represented in this House, surely all sides

of the House would applaud that.

There was also a transfer to the rehabilitation services, again

explained to this member in an earlier response to a question, which

made the $400,000 in our vote transfer to the rehabilitation services.

Mr. Chairman, instead of a decrease in the overall vote for services

for families and children, we have a net increase in that vote of $2

million.

I would like to respond to the other question which this member

brings up. She refers to food banks. All of us in this House have

always been supportive of the voluntary sector at all times, whether or

not it's an affluent time in this province. When that side of the House

was government in this province, there were people who were providing

food for people in need, clothing for people in need. Don't tell us

there were not, because there were, and I know those voluntary

organizations who did just that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! All members will be allowed to take their place in debate. One at a time, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We applaud the efforts of the people such

as the Salvation Army who have been outstanding, in this province and

in this nation, in their care for the

[ Page 5906 ]

needy over many years and many areas. They have voluntarily given of

themselves to provide help in time of need. I would also like to note

that very many times in the past few months I have been asked about

food banks. There is no control over the food or the dispensing of the

food or the clothing in any of the voluntary organizations; some of

them don't have any control at all. And that's quite all right; there's

nothing wrong with that. If they don't choose to do so, that's the

voluntary nature of the work. But on behalf of the taxpayers of this

province we have to have accountability, and may I say that what this

province does in terms of that kind of budget is monumental. Beyond

$900 million will be spent this year to assist those who are in need.

So please don't try to make the case that because there are food banks

in the province the province is not responding properly to those in

need. Nine hundred million dollars is a very dramatic response indeed.

So, Mr. Chairman, may I say again: we can make comparisons from one

minister to another on expenditures, but this Ministry of Human

Resources is there in time of need for those who need help, and we do

not close our door or in any way refuse people help when they need help.

May I say too, in closing my response to the member who has just

taken her place, that I would like to introduce — because he was not

with me in the introduction that I made in starting these estimates two

days ago — my deputy minister, Mr. John Noble; and assisting from our

finance department of the Ministry of Human Resources is Jim Deas.

MR. SKELLY: The minister seems to delight in making

comparisons between this province and Manitoba, and then to say she's

doing it on a non-political basis. If you're willing to get into those

comparisons on a broader basis I'm willing to do that as well. I'd like

you to compare the unemployment rate in Manitoba with the unemployment

rate here in British Columbia. I'd like you to compare the effort by

the government of Manitoba to create employment for their citizens

compared to the measly effort here in British Columbia. The reason why

we have a problem with the Ministry of Human Resources — in fact, with

the whole government — is that this government has made serious

economic blunders that have driven people into poverty in the first

place.

I hear the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) sitting in the back

seat there, carping away about the comparisons between Manitoba and

British Columbia. I'm pleased to stand beside those comparisons; I'm

pleased to make those comparisons. Manitoba is doing an excellent job

in managing its economy under an NDP government. Yes, when you analyze

the differences between allocations to individuals under their human

resources budget, there may be some differences, but there are also

differences in the cost of living in those provinces, British Columbia

and Manitoba. So let's see the whole comparison.

Let's analyze the whole effort that Manitoba is making to get its

citizens off the welfare rolls, to get its citizens back to work,

because, Mr. Chairman, the best incomes policy is an incomes policy

that allows people to work, allows people to work in dignity and allows

people to contribute to the wealth of this province and to the wealth

of Canada as a whole. That's the object of the government of Manitoba:

not simply to provide a pittance to people who are forced onto welfare

for reasons of their own, but to get those people back into the job

market and producing again.

This is why we have some concern about this particular Minister of

Human Resources. This is why we have some concern about this particular

government, because they do not appear to be doing that. In fact

they're going in precisely the opposite direction. I was just reading a

letter to the editor that was written by the former Leader of the

Opposition, Mr. Bennett, back in 1974, when he was talking about 80,000

people being out of work in British Columbia. There are now more than

80,000 people out of work in the Vancouver region alone. There are more

than 80,000 people out of work in the lower mainland area outside of

Vancouver.

There are 240,000 people out of work in British Columbia, according

to Stats Can. And we know from Stats Can's own figures that they

underestimate — understate — the number of unemployed by about 50

percent. That would mean 300,000 people out of work in British

Columbia, and they were complaining back in 1974 about 80,000 people

being out of work. Yes, we were concerned about that too. If you want

to make some comparisons, you make comparisons between the number of

people who were out of work back in 1974 and 1975, and the number of

people who are out of work now, after the application of Social Credit

draconian policies to the economy of the province of British Columbia.

There was a Ministry of Human Resources budget in total in 1975 of

less than half a billion dollars — $444 million. Now the budget for the

Ministry of Human Resources is $1.5 billion — not because they've

enriched the payments to people, not because they've improved on the

quality and availability of services to people under this budget, but

because they've created so many poor people in this province as a

result of their policies that it's costing the taxpayers of British

Columbia millions upon millions upon millions of dollars — mostly

borrowed money — to pay the welfare bill.

That's the comparison that we would like to strike in this debate,

Mr. Chairman. That's the comparison that the people of British Columbia

should be looking at when they're trying to determine the effectiveness

and the ability of this minister: the fact that when the current

government took office, less than half a billion dollars was being paid

out in welfare payments in this province for the whole Ministry of

Human Resources budget. Today a billion and a half dollars is being

paid out to maintain that huge welfare drain on the B.C. economy that

was created by this minister and her colleagues in that cabinet. That's

the problem in British Columbia right now.

I think we could enrich the payments that are made to people on

welfare, the people who must be on social assistance because they have

no other choice. We could do that. But we could only do that if we had

a party in government today that was committed to getting people in

British Columbia back to work, back to producing wealth, back to

working in dignity and contributing to the economy of this province and

to the economy of Canada. But that minister there does not have that

kind of commitment. That minister right there does not have that kind

of commitment. That's the problem we're dealing with here in British

Columbia today. That's why we're dealing with a budget that's $1.5

billion.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This government loves to talk about the biggest and the best in

British Columbia: "Supernatural B.C."; "the biggest world's fair in

history"; the number of countries that are coming to Expo....

[ Page

5907 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SKELLY: I agree. We think that Expo's a very positive thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's about time.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, if you check back in the Hansard of

this Legislature, you will find that every step along the way that

legislation was supported.

[Interruption.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Leader....

MR. SKELLY: Am I debating with somebody in the gallery, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you are....

[Interruption.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Sergeant.... Would you please sit for a moment till they clear the gallery.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Leader of the

Opposition continue. You appreciate that we are on vote 42, the

Ministry of Human Resources, and not that of other ministers at this

moment.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to introduce the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. Segarty'

s) sister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. SKELLY: We can make comparisons between Manitoba and

British Columbia. We can make comparisons between what happened in this

province in 1974 and 1975 and what's happening in this province now. A

minister must be judged, as to her effectiveness in performing her

mandate, on what's happening in the province right now.

The simple fact is that there are more people on welfare and on

social assistance in British Columbia right now than there ever have

been at any time in the past — an historically high number of people on

welfare. We're paying out more for social assistance and for services

under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources than we've

ever paid out at any time in the past, and this budget is becoming a

horrendous burden on the taxpayers of British Columbia.

What we should be doing in British Columbia is developing programs that get

these people back to work — those who are able to work. We should be getting

these people back to work so that the economy is producing again, is developing

the kind of wealth again, and is tapping our natural resources that we can use

to convert those natural resources into revenues for the province which can

contribute to making the livelihoods of people who must be on welfare and on

social assistance a little better than they can currently be because of the

strapped economic position of the government.

Mr. Chairman. as far as I'm concerned, this minister has been a

complete and utter failure in fulfilling her responsibilities as

Minister of Human Resources. To tell you the truth, Mr. Chairman, I

don't think her heart's in it. I don't think she really down deep cares

about it. I think her major concern is all of that glitter and all of

that publicity that's attached to those big projects like Expo and like

ALRT. That's what she really likes. She can't really bring herself to

be concerned about the need for people in British Columbia to be

employed again.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You can't have one without the other.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, the lady who sits in the back and who comes

from Surrey says you can't have one without the other. We know that

Expo is going to create 50,000 jobs for six months, and we welcome any

jobs in this province at this point. But as I pointed out, Mr.

Chairman, when we're dealing with the problem of 100,000 people

unemployed in the city of Vancouver alone, another more than 100,000

people unemployed in the lower mainland area alone and thousands upon

thousands of unemployed around the province and in my own constituency,

we wonder exactly what impact this is going to have. We know it's only

going to be for a six-month period.

[3:15]

When we took at the big booze party that was held in Vancouver at a

cost of half a million dollars, ostensibly to introduce journalists to

Expo, we wonder if those kinds of expenditures by this government are

legitimate, even to promote Expo. Expo has the possibility of

being....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, we are on the estimates of the

Minister of Human Resources, under vote 42. My understanding is that

Expo is not part of her administration or her estimates. If you would

be relevant to vote 42 and the administration of the Minister of Human

Resources, I'm sure the House would appreciate it.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Chairman,

was talking about the food banks and the fact that we have long lines

of people waiting for food at these food banks. Every Wednesday, people

in Vancouver go to the food bank in downtown Vancouver, and the

line-ups are blocks long of people needing food. Now she says that she

gives the volunteers who run the food bank a pat on the back, but says

that they're not careful enough. They don't screen people enough. How

can volunteers conduct a means test of people who come to the food

banks for food?

Mr. Chairman, we know that Expo is going to take place in this

province in May of 1986. What do we want to show to the people of the

world who come here seeking to invest, seeking to locate industry here

and seeking to travel here again? Do we want to show them over 200,000

people receiving social assistance? Are we going to be proud of that?

Do we want to show them long lines at the food bank? Is that the kind

of thing we're going to be proud of and display to people who come here

from all over the world to Expo?

Or do we want to be proud of a different kind of British Columbia, a

more positive British Columbia, a British Columbia whose government has

as its objective getting people back into productive long-term

employment again and getting people contributing in a positive and a

dignified way to

[ Page 5908 ]

the economy of this province? Do we want to show those people who

come to Expo a more positive, vibrant economy that is going to thrive

and contribute to the wealth of this country over the long-term?

Because of this minister's failure to follow through in her mandate as

the Minister of Human Resources, I don't think that we're going to have

those kinds of positive things to show to the people of this world.

This is what we're concerned about in this particular minister's

administration.

This minister should be called the Minister of Poverty, because the

one thing that's happened under her term as Minister of Human Resources

is that more and more people in British Columbia have become poor. More

and more people in British Columbia rely on government handouts rather

than their own energy and ability and talent to produce the kind of

wealth that they would like to produce for this province.

More and more people, Mr. Chairman, have been humiliated by this

government and by this minister, and I'm ashamed for this minister. I

think she's done a terrible job. I don't think she deserves the salary

that's being paid to her under this

section of the budget.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I thought the minister might have something to say in response.

I'd like to try to add something to the discussion, if I may, Mr.

Chairman, particularly with respect to the income assistance programs.

I listened the day before yesterday to the minister explain the

workings of her ministry and the way in which the staff try to help

people who are receiving assistance payments of one kind or another. It

sounded exactly the way a Ministry of Human Resources should be

operating, as though they were trying to get people away from the

program, as though they were trying to reduce the number of caseloads

rather than simply looking after the ones that are receiving assistance.

I can recall a former Minister of Human Resources in the province of

British Columbia, a former Social Credit minister prior to 1972,

standing up and boasting each year about the number of people he was

able to get off welfare rolls and get back into some meaningful role in

society. I questioned the figures at the time, but I thought then, too,

that at least he was trying to do the right thing in getting people

back as useful members in society. Not that society needed it, but they

themselves, as individuals, needed to feel that they were useful. If

they were going to contribute, if they were going to really belong to

the human race, they had to feel that they had some meaningful role in

the community. Getting them off welfare and getting them back into

being working members of society seemed to be the right way to go.

I listened to the minister tell us what's going on right now. But,

Mr. Chairman, I need a little more evidence that that really is going

on right now, because the evidence that I see suggests to me that that

is not what is happening at all. It suggests to me simply that people

who come in and ask for assistance are simply being treated as groups

of people who are begging. They are shuffled through the system just as

quickly as they possibly can — either individually or as they turn up

in line. They line up and wait for some kind of attention. They are

then asked to sit down and wait some more. They come back and they wait

some more at a counter, and they are really made to feel that they're

begging from the public purse when they appear at these Human Resources

or welfare offices.

Mr. Chairman, the budget for GAIN programs for the year ended March

31, 1984, was $776 million, and that was after part of the infamous

July 7, 1983, budget. The amount for the GAIN program is $776 million.

In the budget for the year ending March 31, 1986, the figure has gone

up by 19 percent, up to $921 million. We know, Mr. Chairman, in that

period, that people have not experienced an increase of any kind in the

amount of dollars they're getting. So obviously — even if we didn't

have figures to prove it — it's because of an increase in the caseload.

Rather than have people going off welfare — and certainly there is some

circulation — the caseload in this same period, from 1983 to 1985, has

gone up by 20 percent. The dollars have gone up by 25 percent, and the

caseload has gone up by 20 percent on these figures.

What about the people who are looking after all of these individuals

who are coming and asking for help? And they're not just asking for

handouts, Mr. Chairman; they're asking for help. They need help because

of what the government has done to them. Because of the way in which

the government has managed the economy in the province of British

Columbia, in particular for the last three years, more and more people

are coming to the government and asking for help.

What about the help that they are getting? Mr. Chairman, for the

year ended March 31, 1984, when we approved the expenditures for this

ministry, we were told that the number of employees to be hired would

be 5,443. In the budget before us now, the figure dealing with 25

percent more dollars than was awarded then, and with a caseload 20

percent higher, the number of people involved in dealing with the

people who are coming and asking for help has decreased by 18 percent —

down to 4,464.

1 ask you, Mr. Chairman, how can 18 percent fewer staff deal with 20

percent more people? And those people — most of them — have never had

to ask for that kind of assistance before. You and I as members must

have had coming to our constituency offices people who have never had

to come to the government and ask for any help. They need help now. As

I say, Mr. Chairman, the government pushed them into that position, and

instead of getting help from the government they are being asked to

line up and wait while 18 percent fewer staff members are dealing with

20 percent more people coming and asking for help. How can that be?

When the minister spoke two days ago in the House, she told us how

the department was working, how it should have been working, and told

us of the help they should be giving to people. In almost every area

except the GAIN programs — the amount being paid out — the budget has

been cut. There have been nominal increases in some small programs, but

in total there has been a substantial reduction in the budget.

But, Mr. Chairman, that's only part of it. The figure provided for

GAIN programs in the budget that we're discussing right now and that

the minister is asking approval for today is not really a forecast of

what the ministry is going to have to pay out for GAIN programs in the

year we're now in. It's simply a reflection of what's happened in the

past year. As the budget itself points out, the figure is just 2.3

percent higher than the amount estimated to be spent in the year ending

March 31, 1985. Now, with an increasing number.... Month by month

the figure goes up; month by month the economy gets worse; month by

month more people are running out of unemployment insurance. More and

more people have to go to the government and ask for help, yet the

ministry is providing for an increase of only 2.3 percent, with no

increase in allowances for individuals.

[ Page

5909 ]

There are many different ways that the government could get the

economy moving again, but certainly one of them should be to put more

money in the pockets of the people, who will certainly spend it as soon

as they get it.

One of the ways in which the government has hurt the economy has

been to lay off — and to threaten with layoff — some 75,000 people in

the province. That's just employees of government, Crown corporations

and various Crown institutions, municipalities and school boards. They

threatened 75,000 people with being laid off, and they laid off many of

those. In this one ministry they experienced a reduction in staff of 18

percent in a two-year period. All of those people have gone — where,

Mr. Chairman? Many of them have exhausted their unemployment insurance

benefits. Some of them are still on; more are exhausting them as month

by month goes by. They too will no longer have the money to spend to

keep the economy going in their own communities, let alone the service

that they used to give, let alone the services that the minister told

us about on Tuesday — the services that these people are giving to

those who are asking for assistance in the various Human Resources

offices throughout the community.

Mr. Chairman, increases in allowances for people living below any

calculation of a poverty line is money that would be spent in their

communities immediately. It's money that would help the small business

enterprises in their communities immediately. It's money that would be

circulating and making people feet a little more confident about the

future in British Columbia. Some of these people have perhaps been on

assistance all of their lives; some of them, unfortunately, perhaps for

generations. But my main concern right now is for the increasing number

of people who are having to fall back on that last resort for the first

time in their lives. Think of the psychological effect on them once

they get caught in that trap. The longer they're receiving Human

Resources assistance payments — GAIN payments — of any kind, the more

likely they are to go on receiving them. Something has to be done to

break that cycle.

If they were given an allowance that was a reasonable amount of

money, they would then have an opportunity once again to take

part in

what's going on in the community, to get out, to try to do something

for themselves. As it is, they're given simply enough to exist on, not

enough to live in a way that would make them feel they have some chance

of escaping from that kind of life, some chance of once again entering

into the main economic stream of life in their communities and in our

province.

Mr. Chairman, I have all kinds of material and can make a case, I

believe, for a significant increase in the amount being paid to

recipients of GAIN payments. I would like the minister to respond to

this, without my going into all that detail, and tell me what her

attitude is toward the amount now being paid, an amount that has not

increased over a three-year period and that in some instances has

decreased; amounts that I feel should have more than kept up to the

cost of living. Because times have been so bad, the need is greater to

make that increasing number of people feel they have some role to play.

[3:30]

Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to respond, perhaps with

some kind of evidence to the effect that her ministry staff, having

been reduced by 25 percent, is able to cope with the increasing number

of people who are coming every day and asking for assistance.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, may I just respond to the

Leader of the Opposition and then to the member for Nanaimo. First,

there was a fair amount of time spent by the Leader of the Opposition —

and understandably so, because I mentioned the rates in the province of

Manitoba as compared to those here in the province of British

Columbia.... I thought it important to mention — with his

tremendous accolades for the Manitoba NDP government — that he should

really be aware of the Winnipeg Free Press of just a few weeks ago, all

to do with the ministry of social services there in the province of

Manitoba. An

article from March 30, for example — "Day Care Boost

Called Inadequate" — says: "'...The government is spending millions of

dollars on advertising campaigns and hundreds of thousands of dollars

on salaries for political aides,' noting the money could be better

spent on programs for children."

Another Winnipeg Free Press comment: "Social Programs Fail to Reach the

People in Need." This was written by a former member of the B.C. press

gallery, Frances Russell. I'll quote just a bit of the article:

"Manitoba has four assistance programs which employ

needs or means tests, and which require prospective recipients to

apply. Many of the so-called 'deserving' poor are unwilling to undergo

the humiliation of exposing their lives to a government bureaucrat.

Also, often the neediest in society are least likely to be informed on

the help available."

Again from the Winnipeg Free Press comes the headline: "NDP A

Reverse Robin Hood." "Schroeder is accused of taking from the poor and

giving to the rich." Here's another quote from this: "But while the

program talks about the progress it is making in creating employment,

the number of welfare recipients has jumped."

Mr. Chairman, I'll just respond in a general way now to the whole

idea of income assistance increasing in the province of British

Columbia, and also to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I think the

member for Nanaimo is truly sincere in his questioning regarding income

assistance recipients. I think he shares our real concern to make sure

that the people most in need are the ones who will receive any benefits

from the government. I also believe that he wants to see them out of

that cycle of welfare. He is absolutely correct in some cases, but not

in all. In some cases the repetition of welfare month after month and

year after year almost guarantees, if it is a very long time, that that

family will be in that income assistance caseload, income assistance

space, even into further generations. I understand that. I know he

understands that.

What he doesn't understand, what is woefully misunderstood in this

province — and, as I found out at a recent federal-provincial

conference of social services ministers, woefully misunderstood in this

nation — is that people do not stay on income assistance in this

province, or in the provinces of Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, and across

this nation, or, indeed, particularly in this province.... We

understand the income assistance caseload. It is not understood in most

jurisdictions.

The people of British Columbia use welfare, income assistance,

benefits, whatever you want to call them, as they were meant to be

used. There are exceptions, and there always will be exceptions to any

rule. But let me just say that people in British Columbia use welfare

as it was meant to be used: to assist them in a downturn. In this last

recession there has been a downturn in the economy, and they have used

[ Page 5910 ]

welfare to assist them over that time. Therefore there are more

people on welfare. There are more people on welfare in Manitoba and

there are more people on welfare in Ontario — there are more people on

welfare across this nation. British Columbia isn't any different when a

world recession hits this nation.

Let me say this. B.C. alone stood out, some five years ago, in

identifying the caseload and the movement of people in and out of that

caseload. We understand what we are dealing with. We have a

professional staff who have identified that caseload so that we do know

that people use the income assistance for a very short time.

So when the member for Nanaimo talks about people on the income

assistance caseload for a very long time, I want to implore this House

at least to understand, if we can't make the rest of the nation

understand.... I have to say there's a bit of a breakthrough there,

since the federal-provincial conference. I would really like our House

to understand that in this province people use it for a very short

time. Today there would be more than 6,500 people enrolled in the

Individual Opportunity Plan. But even without the Individual

Opportunity Plan, before they become eligible for the plan or the job

action program, they will, on their own, be off income assistance.

Fifty percent of the people who come on income assistance today will be

off income assistance anywhere between three months and eight months

from now — on their very own. They don't stay on the caseload. Fifty

percent of the rest of them are off in the following four months. They

do not stay on the caseload. They are not the same people. They are not

a group that you can address in one sweeping statement and say they are

there all the time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I will quote from the Wall Street Journal . This is a 1984

publication. It is interesting that some two and a half years before

this was ever printed, this great breakthrough, which they are saying

is an explosive policy, was discovered by the state of Michigan a very

long time after it was discovered and implemented in terms of

addressing the poor here in the province of British Columbia. Let me

just quote from what the Michigan group found explosive. From 1971 to

1978, about 52 percent of the families who started off in the top

bracket of income shifted to a lower bracket. All of those who started

in the lowest bracket shifted and moved up so that their lot increased

and they moved up. Many escaped poverty within not seven years, as was

acknowledged earlier in a given for the state of Michigan, but a few

months. This is the operative sentence: "Only a little over one-half of

the individuals living in poverty in one year are found to be poor in

the next year."

I think it's very important for our people in this House at least to

understand that, so you understand what we are doing in order to give a

better way of life to those who come to us on income assistance. This

province alone has led the nation in innovative ways. We are looked on

across this country as having the most innovative ways of bringing

people out of income assistance and into independence. Along with any

other province there's no comparison; none whatsoever.

I mentioned that we have two programs. I wish the member for Nanaimo would

even go with me to see one in particular, the job action program. Some 300 people

a month are going through the job action program, which absolutely dramatically

turns around their lives. Another almost 7,000 people.... In September

of last year there were 7,253 people, and it averages around 6,800, 6,500,

7,000, 7,200 people each and every month that after they cannot get themselves

off income assistance, we do not leave them in that long-term situation. They

are able to get themselves off within that eight months, and after that we put

them onto an Individual Opportunity Plan; and I'm going to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, it is succeeding. They are getting into independence through the Individual

Opportunity Plan, through the job action program. The member for Nanaimo cries

for programs and initiatives to do just that. They are here now, and they've

been in place for a very long time.

Experience shows that regardless of what the limit or how you extend

income assistance, and it's a very separate manner.... He asked the

question: what is adequate? It will be different things to different

people. But regardless of the limits, it is in response to the business

cycle that we have income assistance caseloads. That's what it's in

response to. We are now coming out of the recession; we are hoping the

caseload is going to diminish. If everything goes as history has

dictated, of course that will be the case.

You see, the members of the NDP can't say on the one hand that we

are not doing enough for income assistance recipients and then on the

other hand say that we are spending too much on income assistance.

That's the exact argument that the Leader of the Opposition gave today.

Please look into the Individual Opportunity Plan and the job action

program. They are initiatives that aren't seen anywhere else in this

country, and they are working for individuals in this province.

MR. STUPICH: The minister quotes from the Wall Street

Journal . I'd like to quote from the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of

B.C. paper. It is an organization that I think is more appropriate to

the province of British Columbia right now than is the Wall Street

Journal . I've said it; now I'll read it: "British Columbians are on

welfare or UIC." That's the situation. I don't know whether the

minister is personally aware of the number of people who are destitute.

I don't know whether the minister has ever had an opportunity to visit

a food bank lineup or a soup kitchen. I've done that, Mr. Chairman. I'm

not sure whether you have, but I know they exist in your community. I

know they exist in every major centre in the province of British

Columbia. I know they have not existed in the province of British

Columbia for 50 years, so this is something new for B.C.

I don't recall the minister saying anything in her response that

would lead me to think there was going to be any change, except that

she now thinks we're into a recovery period. Well, the budget didn't

really indicate that to me, Mr. Chairman. There's nothing in the budget

that would reflect, as I see it, any increase in the economy of the

province of British Columbia. There is a modest increase in government

revenue, but they've increased taxes to achieve that.

I have one clipping from.... I tried to make this point the

humiliation of going on welfare for the first time. There's a letter to

the editor in the Province of April 22, 1985. The person writing has

never had to come to the government and ask for help. I'll just read

this line: "I was sure it was only the lazy and the greedy who were

whining and complaining about handouts being taken away." They then go

on to describe the way in which that person was handled at the Ministry

of Human Resources office. That's another point I was trying to make.

[ Page 5911 ]

The minister tells me of the statistics that she is compiling,

showing that people are not really staying on, although the number is

climbing. Although more and more people are going on welfare all the

time, nevertheless they're not staying too long; there is a turnover. I

certainly hope that is the case. But I have to ask again: if 25 percent

less staff people are looking after 20 percent more of a caseload, and

if that reduced staff is compiling statistics to make the ministry look

good, then who is looking after the people who are coming in asking for

help?

She did mention one program that she wants me to come and see. Well,

Mr. Chairman, you and I have had experiences, I'm sure, visiting things

where we have been invited to come and look. People talk about going to

foreign countries, where they show you what they want you to see. I'm

sure the ministry could point to programs of which the minister is

proud, and which they believe are succeeding, but the facts of the

matter are that more and more people are going on welfare every day.

The government is taking no steps to change that. They're not providing

adequate funds. The people who are going on welfare are going hungry;

they're going into food bank lineups to get food; they're going to soup

kitchens to get a meal. It isn' t good enough for B.C., in 1985 — a

province as rich as we are — to say that we can't afford a reasonable

standard of living for everyone in this community.

Whatever the reason that they're going to the Ministry of Human

Resources in asking for help, they should get it. They need it, not

just from people who are sitting there waiting to hand money out. I

agree with that: they should be getting it from individuals who have

the time and the interest to listen to the appeal being made to them,

and who have an interest in trying to help that person, not simply by

offering money — I agree with that — but enough money so that that

person can hold his or her head high, can walk in the community and

live in the community at a reasonable standard of living, and not have

to go from the welfare office to the food bank lineup or from the

welfare office to the soup kitchen lineup and get help there.

I'd like to quote further from the Federated Anti-Poverty Group.

Here are some examples of cases from the FAPG that illustrate our

problems besides the rates being too low, the caseload lengths and

inadequate service. The first one: "In Vernon and Salmon Arm, the

welfare office there, because it is getting so many applicants,

processes them all in a group." I made that point earlier. They don't

have the time. Perhaps they had the interest at one time, but they're

certainly losing that, I would think, in view of the pressure on them.

They don't have the time to deal with individuals as individuals.

[3:45]

Quoting further: "This means the fundamental guideline of MHR" — the

minister talked about the guidelines, and with the guidelines I can

agree — "...right to privacy and confidentiality is usurped, let

alone the kind of service being administered." I have to keep coming

back to that, Mr. Chairman. It's the level of service that concerns me

— not more than, perhaps, but certainly to a large extent — along with

the minimum amounts that are being paid.

Number two: "In Dawson Creek appeals take a lot longer than the

required time, and in the recent past they had to go to Terrace, where

the regional manager is." I'm not sure how current this is, although

it's a recent paper that's come to my hands.

Number three: "We have cases of letters of protest written by MHR

recipients to the ministry going to Victoria, returning to the

recipient's MHR office unopened, and then being put in their file with

a severe reprimand going from a worker to the recipient." There was a

time when we had a problem in Nanaimo, when people going to the welfare

workers thought that they were being treated unfairly. I did appeal, on

behalf of my constituents, and I must say that the reaction there was

positive. I have no problem with the people working in the Ministry of

Human Resources office in Nanaimo or in the headquarters in Duncan or

here in Victoria. My problem is with the government attitude, the

government approach that we can't afford to give any more money to

these people who are getting barely enough to survive. Mr. Chairman, we

can borrow a billion and a half dollars to provide for northeast coal —

coal that isn't needed — but we can't afford to pay a decent amount of

money to people who need it to be able to hold up their heads in their

community, who need it to educate their children properly, who need it

to dress their children so that they will not stand out like a sore

thumb when going to school, and who need it simply to live as citizens

in our communities. We can afford it. We can afford it if we want to.

That's what I'm asking the government. I want them to change their

attitudes. I want this minister to have a change in attitude, and to

agree that it is important that people have a meaningful income.

There was an experiment tried in Manitoba some years ago — before, I

believe.... No, I'm not sure what government was in office at the

time. But it was financed by the provincial and the federal

governments. Everybody in the community was paid not the kind of income

that we're now giving to people on GAIN but a reasonable income,

whatever their circumstances and whatever they were doing. I don't know

the end of the story; I know it was being tried, jointly funded by the

province and by the federal government, and I don't know how it worked

out. But it was an attempt to see whether that wouldn't benefit the

whole community, and whether people getting that kind of assistance

wouldn't very soon find that they didn't need it, simply because they

were for a time getting a reasonable income, and found then that they

were able to get it on their own.

We're not doing that in British Columbia. If there is any

turnover.... The minister tells me there is; I can't say that she's

wrong, because I don't know. I'm not sure that she knows. But if there

is a turnover, from what she said, it's not because of any positive

action on the part of government or on the part of that minister; it's

simply because it's happening in spite of what the government is doing,

rather than because of what the government is doing.

Mr. Chairman, the minister told us a couple of days ago about all

the programs that they have in the ministry to try to help and advise

people. In my experience this just isn't happening, because the staff

in the offices — the staff members who are there meeting people; the

front-line people, if you like — may be told by the minister in

Victoria what they should be doing and how they should be helping

people, but they 're faced with long lineups of people looking for help

and have no time to do any more than the minimum amount and to hope

that they'll go away, to hope that the problems will disappear.

Giving these people an increase in allowance would be one way of

enabling them to live at a decent standard of living in their

community, of enabling them to participate in their community, and of

helping the communities in total by having that kind of action. We

could do it if it were Tumbler Ridge. If we were to say that a certain

area of land within

[ Page 5912 ]

every community in British Columbia were to be called Tumbler Ridge,

we could pour money in there, and the whole community would benefit. If

we were going to say that in every community there will be a minimum

ALRT, the government would then spend all kinds of money in that

community — giving it to the people on welfare, or whatever. Then that

community would prosper. If we were going to develop a little Expo in

every community in the province, money would be no object. We could get

all the money we wanted for that kind of program, and that community

would prosper. We wouldn't need to be paying as much out in Human

Resources, because the caseload would be much less.

If the minister and her government would adopt the attitude that we

must tackle this problem.... They thought we needed northeast coal;

they thought we needed ALRT; they thought we needed Expo. If they can

believe for one moment that having all these people receiving GAIN

payments is something that we can't afford.... It's too expensive.

The effect on the people involved costs us too much in the long run. If

we would go out and raise the money to increase those allowances to a

meaningful amount, we would not only do something for our economy — as

we have done for those areas of the province where the government has

decided that a massive public project is in order — and for every

community in the province, but we would be doing something to return

some dignity, some hope and some purpose to the lives of all of those

people who are now receiving subsistence payments from the Ministry of

Human Resources.

MR. DAVIS: I'd like to change the focus of the debate

somewhat, to the other responsibility of the minister, that for B.C.

Transit. Those of us who rode on the light rapid transit trains last

night witnessed a new mode of transport for British Columbia,

certainly, and indeed a new mode for Canada and the world, one which is

going to sell not only in the Toronto and Vancouver areas, but in

numerous other countries as the years go by.

I think we have to be proud of it for several reasons. It's Canadian

technology. It's efficient. It's admittedly capital intensive, but it's

the kind of public transport which many people, including most members

of the New Democratic Party, have been demanding for some years. It may

be ahead of its time in the Vancouver area, but a system like that will

be needed increasingly as the years go by, needed certainly in the

1990s, and needed urgently by the year 2000, certainly by the year

2010, when the population in the lower mainland will be several times

what it is now. It will postpone for years to come, resolve, the

problem of congestion in downtown Vancouver, and indeed in the

principal centres of the major municipalities in the lower mainland.

I could list a number of people who deserve some congratulations for

the project. Certainly the Hon. Bill Vander Zalm, when he was Minister

of Municipal Affairs, had a good deal to do with launching the project.

The decision then was essentially which of numerous systems should be

employed. The decision, which some of us in this Legislature supported,

was to use Canadian technology, then still claimed to be untried — the

system under development for Toronto, with all of Ontario's experience

in public transportation.

It has proven itself; it is the new system. It will be the system used to expand

the TTC, the Toronto Transit Commission network, over the next several decades.

It is automated; it is lightweight. It can only function efficiently if it is

above or below the streets. It cannot be at grade level and involve intersections,

largely because commuter time would be very much increased. Because of reduced

travel time this system will appeal to many people. It will appeal increasingly

as congestion grows. It will certainly appeal to those who live south of the

Fraser River, when it's extended to Surrey, because it will overcome a serious

bottleneck in crossing from Surrey to other municipalities to the north and

east. Sooner or later it will also head toward Coquitlam — Surrey and Coquitlam

being the two principal growth areas.

I mentioned Bill Vander Zalm. Another person is Kirk Foley,

president and chief executive officer of Metro Canada, the Ontario

government firm that has developed the hardware. Kirk Foley was born

and brought up in Burnaby. He's a western export to the great

metropolis of Toronto. It was in part his great enthusiasm which

carried this project through to successful conclusion technically —

and, I think, economically; the ideas contained in this system lead to

better economics in the longer term.

Mike O'Connor was hired by our steering committee in the fall of

1981. Mike O'Connor is the project administrator and has been

throughout. Mike was with Highways. He's a graduate of UBC, a British

Columbian and a Canadian. He has shown that a project on this scale can

be run by a Canadian like himself. Others whom our committee hired

include George Flanigan, the property man; Gordon Adair, who is in

charge of finances and has been throughout; Bob Egby, who came to us

from ICBC — Bob has been the public relations man in recent times, and

I think he has done a very effective job — and Tom Parkinson, who has

been on the project throughout, and who I believe was hired when the

NDP was in power.

The committee, which I was asked to chair, was formed in 1980 and

really got down to work in early 1981. Along with the municipalities,

their planners and engineers, it finally located the line, located the

stations, and negotiated, revised and altered contracts on many

occasions. We met at least monthly; sometimes we met weekly. With the

exception of me, the committee was made up, interestingly enough, of

mayors and, in one or two cases, aldermen. We were able, through

cooperation by several levels of government, to resolve many of the

outstanding problems. I think most of the right decisions were made.

Obviously the system is coming in on time. Trains will soon be running

from one end to the other — from downtown waterfront Vancouver to

downtown New Westminster by June. Commercial service is not scheduled

to begin until January 1 of next year, so there's plenty of run-in time.

[4:00]

In terms of economics the early estimates suggested something like

$718 million in as-spent dollars. The current figure is in the order of

$800 million. The largest single reason for the increase is provincial

and federal sales taxes. There was an agreement in 1981 between the

province and Ottawa that they would charge sales taxes on each other's

projects, and that made it necessary to add some $60 million to the

cost of the project. That was a tax decision.

The system now has capacity to carry the handicapped, which it

didn't initially, and it can carry loads at least a quarter greater

than those originally envisaged. With a much enhanced carrying

capacity, roughly treble the original design, in capital terms we've

got a system of which we can be proud for roughly $800 million.

[ Page 5913 ]

The biggest single challenge for the next couple of years is the

reorganization of bus routes and the coordination of the bus system in

the lower mainland with the new light rapid transit system. Together

with SeaBus, the three modes will be one system. Stuart Hodgson, who 15

years ago was appointed commissioner of the Northwest Territories and

previous to that had been an officer with the IWA, is the new general

manager, as I'll call him, for the lower mainland. His several years

with B.C. Ferries were successful ones; he certainly dealt with the

labour relations problems in the B.C. Ferries effectively, and

hopefully he will be able to do the same with B.C. Transit.

There are several questions which I'd like to direct to the minister

in this connection. I hope that in the fullness of time — the fullness

of time being the next relatively few months — Stuart Hodgson will in

every way be in charge in the lower mainland: in charge of all of the

public transportation in the lower mainland, including light rapid

transit, buses and SeaBus. Taking over that role, he takes over a very

large portion of the job that B.C. Transit has to do in this province.

The lower mainland encompasses at least two-thirds of the population of

the province, certainly the most congested areas.

Stuart Hodgson has that assignment. I'd like to get some feel as to

where he will fit relative to the bureaucracy here in Victoria; how he

will relate to Larry Miller, who has been general manager of B.C.

Transit for a long time; what the headquarters function in Victoria

will be once Stuart Hodgson and the other municipal area managers get

their jobs in hand and well organized. In other words, is Stuart

Hodgson really the boss in the lower mainland, or is he not? What's

going to be his relationship with Victoria? What's Larry Miller's job

after Stuart Hodgson takes over the bulk of the work managing the

system?

I'd also like to ask about the B.C. Transit board. I think it's been

an anomaly that the mayor of West Vancouver should be the chairman of

the board of B.C. Transit. After all, West Vancouver has its own bus

system; it's subsidized by B.C. Transit. On the face of it there is a

conflict of interest there. I don't think Derrick Humphreys should

continue as the chairman of that board; I think that an arm's-length

relationship would be better. I favour individual municipalities having

their own bus systems, etc., as long as there's a close physical

linkage with the overall transit system. So I am not disputing the

viability or the usefulness of the blue bus system on the North Shore,

but merely the personalities involved.

I'm concerned about the projected extension to Surrey. The crossing

over the river is necessary; it's fundamental to making the light rapid

transit system economically viable in the next few years, as much as a

third increase in ridership for an increase in investment, if you get

across the river, of say 10 percent. I am not one of those who are

convinced it should be extended beyond Scott Road up to Surrey Place,

at least at this time. I think when the announcement was made a year

ago, it was made for reasons which I can't fully explain. I'd like to

ask the minister on what studies it was based. I personally believe

that the current economics indicate that light rapid transit must be

extended to Scott Road, and a second good hard look taken at the

extension some four and a half kilometres up to Surrey Place costing

$120 million. I'm not sure that that's money well spent. I'm not sure

that it's comparable to the economics of spending a lesser amount going

to Brunette in Coquitlam. I hope the government has an open mind in

that area, because ridership would be enhanced by going to Scott Road

in Surrey and Brunette in Coquitlam as the next phase of the project,

rather than simply going on to Surrey Place; in other words, going

exclusively to Surrey.

I'd like to ask the minister what Ed Sweeney's function is in

Surrey. He's a PR officer there, I assume. We were able to get along

without that kind of PR officer in the first phase, and I never saw him

at any of the numerous meetings we had with Surrey council, planners

and engineers when I had some responsibility for that project.

MR. NICOLSON: You're just against Roman Catholic Irishmen. That's your problem.

MR. DAVIS: Well. I think these are questions which relate to

economy and also to the extension up to Surrey Place. I'd like an

answer in that connection.

I'd like to ask whether design work is continuing on the ALRT bridge

across the Fraser. That is the bottleneck at the moment; that is

priority now. If it isn't proceeding, then the crossing to Surrey will

be delayed a year or two. So I hope at least some funds are being made

available for what I'll call the final design process for the ALRT

bridge across the Fraser just downstream of the Patullo Bridge.

Beautification of the ALRT line: it certainly lends itself to not

only beautification, but local parks, bike rider trails and so on. I'd

like to ask whether those costs are part of the ALRT or B.C. Transit,

or whether they're under another heading. I know there's a joint

program with the federal government to provide jobs, and that certainly

has an appeal.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, could I please refer back

to the member for Nanaimo? I see he is not in his place, but for the

record I would like it clearly spelled out in this House, in response

to the attack that he made on the government in terms of reducing

assistance for people who come to our Ministry of Human Resources

office for income assistance, that he misunderstands the overview that

we did. We did reduce staff, but not in those services. As a matter of

fact, those services have indeed been increased. In family assistance

workers and in clerical and supervisory help for that particular area,

there has been an increase of 7.4 percent — from 752 to 875 people at

this point. So that's an increase in staff in income assistance.

I can respond to decreases in other areas, but we said at the time

we were making those decreases that the downsizing of government —

which everybody, even on that side of the House, seemed to agree with —

was needed to respond to the downsizing of income to government. That

was done under that formula which said that we would maintain our

essential services. I'm pleased to say that we have done so.

Also, I would like to point out that in the turnover.... Once

again I respond to the member for Nanaimo, who said he didn't know if

we knew how many people were off income assistance. Well, I'm going to

tell you that we do know. We not only know how many are on but how long

they stay on, and we know the turnover for each and every month. The

figures are — I'm glad you asked; how nice of you to do so — that in March

1983 and March 1984, 59 percent — almost 60 percent — of the people who

were on income assistance were off in four months. Six out of every ten

who came to us were off income assistance in the first four months. In

the following four months 73 percent were off income assistance.

[ Page 5914 ]

Therefore if we didn't catch them in the first four months, the

balance, to a total of 73 percent — almost three-quarters — were off in

the next four months.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

So you see, it goes back to what I said before: this is an

ever-changing group of people. The ones that we put all of our efforts

into — most of our efforts; I shouldn't say all, but most of our

efforts — are those who are on income assistance beyond the eight

months. Most of them, three-quarters of them, will find work and use

income assistance as it was meant to be.

Welfare, as far as this government and this province are concerned,

should not be a way of life. Welfare is meant to be temporary

assistance in time of need. I also would like to put on the record, in

response to the member, that we believe — in fact, we have proven it,

and we have accomplished it — that our objective should be independence

through working, not welfare.

I also want to say that the experiment the member referred to that

took place in Manitoba took place in the province of British Columbia

and in New Jersey. Those were the three jurisdictions that tried the

very thing that he was referring to. He admitted that he did not know

the outcome; I do, and I shared that outcome with this House before.

That was where we had left more income in the hands of people. That has

always been brought up, time and time again, in terms of every new

minister, I think, of income assistance, social service. I came into

the responsibility with that idea in mind. Along with my ministry, I

did the experiment, and it didn't work. It didn't work in Manitoba, and

it didn't work in New Jersey. That's why it was abandoned by all three

jurisdictions. That's why when the member for Nanaimo makes that

comment.... We hear it very often. I hear it from members of my own

constituency.

Politics aside, people think that if you do that, that will be the

panacea: just give people more money, leave more money, let them earn

more, and have a sliding scale. It has been proven it doesn't work. We

have done that experiment. We feel it is better to give them all of the

assistance and the benefits of more education, if it's needed — a

choice. The Individual Opportunity Plan is that: it's a choice for more

education; it's a choice for any kind of upgrading, or day care for a

single parent; it's options. It's a plan. It isn't willy-nilly throwing

money at a problem; it is assisting on an individual basis, an

Individual Opportunity Plan, so that that kind of independence that we

wish for every British Columbian can be obtained.

[4:15]

In terms of the derision that seemed to accompany the member's

remarks regarding whether or not we were providing that kind of

leadership, let me just say: northeast coal, Coquihalla, reforestation

programs, Expo 86 and ALRT, which the member for North

Vancouver.... There are 7,500 jobs in construction alone. All of

those things are assisting in jobs, jobs, jobs. That's the response to

the member for Nanaimo.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has addressed

another area of my responsibility. May I say that I am very pleased to

have that responsibility; not because I like the circuses, which the

member for Nanaimo accused me of — not at all. There is a lot of hard

work in delivering a transportation service in this province, whether

it's done by the Minister of Highways with his ferries and highways or

through the MTOC, of which I'm proud to have responsibility, or B.C.

Transit in total and the building of ALRT. You see, transportation

means jobs; transportation means just that. When the member, who has

had a great deal to do and chaired a committee in terms of ALRT....

I was pleased that he gave credit and some response to those people

originally involved in this incredible project. I have to say, that

response to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who has given

hours and days and months of his time to assist us in the building of

ALRT, does not go unnoticed by this side of the House, and I hope it

doesn't go unnoticed by the people of British Columbia.

In response to the questions asked in regard to that, the ALRT line

and the building of ALRT are probably the sleeping giant of the lower

mainland in terms of economic development. Wherever transportation

goes, jobs are created. The member did say that perhaps it's before its

time. It certainly wasn't before its time when the decision was made,

after years and years of studies by GVRD — many that were piled up and

simply lying there gathering dust when this government took hold and

made the decision, under the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill

Vander Zalm. When the decision was made by this government to go ahead,

it was not seen as before its time; it was seen to be about time, and

about time it is. We have to get an answer for that kind of rush-hour

traffic in the city of Vancouver and the lower mainland, and putting in

more roads and more highways and more lanes of traffic is not the

answer.

Mr. Chairman, I can say that it is an exceptionally important

initiative. On an economic basis it's a very important initiative.

There are 15 stations on that line, and each and every station is going

to mean jobs for people who will be building. Apartments will be built,

and commercial areas and shopping centres will be built. There are

going to be fantastic creative things done in each and every area of

those 15 stations.

Just compare what is going on right now at Metrotown in Burnaby,

where $0.5 billion is now being built and another $0.5 billion is on

the drawing board yet to come. So I can say that it is a tremendous

economic initiative. We think about it as moving people from A to B;

it's an economic initiative that's incredible. That's going to be a

wonderful boon.

I'll tell you another thing that's going to happen. The member has

mentioned the beautification program. I'd like to tell him a little

more about that in terms of the cost. First of all, we would not leave

any kind of a building untidy. If we were to build a building — if we

were to build new parliament buildings — we certainly would take the

construction work away. If we were to build a new hospital or new

schools, as we've done many times over in this province, we wouldn't

leave all the debris. Of course we would tidy it up.

We were lucky enough to have the old B.C. Electric and B.C. Hydro

right-of-way. If we hadn't had it, just imagine what the cost of ALRT

would be. But we're not going to leave it untidy; we're going to tidy

it up. Yes, we had a budget to do that, and it was going to be a neat,

better-than-we-found-it, tidied-up position. But we're going to go one

step better than that. We're going to go a long way better than that:

we are going to beautify that line so that it's going to be the most

attractive transit corridor yet to be built in North America.

It will open with a running track for joggers and runners and those

people who enjoy that kind of thing — a healthful participaction idea,

if you like. It will open with a cycle

[ Page 5915 ]

track. Both will be paid for by the private sector, I will have you

know. Moneys will be raised by the private sector so that the people of

the province of British Columbia can enjoy that running track and cycle

track. They will be kept separated for two-thirds of the way, so there

won't be the conflict between runner and cyclist.

In addition, with the committee that was formed with the undertaking

to do the beautification program, we are also getting tremendous and

exciting things offered to us. That committee will self-destruct in

January of next year when the line goes into being. But when it is

finished with its responsibilities, it will have attracted many, many

donations from very many people.

Just a week ago last Friday I was pleased to be present when British

Columbia Television and the Variety Club Tent 47, of which I am a proud

member, announced that they were going to build a special...

MR. VEITCH: In Burnaby-Willingdon.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, In Burnaby-Willingdon, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon does remind me.

...park on the ALRT just around Central Park. It will be a first in

the lower mainland and it will be a first, I believe, in the province.

It will be designed solely for the special children — the handicapped

children — who will be using it. That's a very special and very

attractive idea.

Besides that, we are having offers of assistance for very many

things: an international mile of flags; the Italian community is

building an Italian piazza, which is being designed by the renowned

architect Bruno Freschi. We are having a Chinese garden built.

Thankfully, the Chinese community is participating in that. There are

other cultural communities of our province that are going to enhance

that line and make it so attractive. I should mention that the Canadian

Legion is providing a mile of brilliant red tulips which are going to

be a very fine memory of their anniversary, which, of course, comes in

1986. They will plant the tulips in memory of the veterans of our

province.

There are very many exciting things that are happening on that line.

Yes, I have to tell you that there is participation from the federal

government, which we are very pleased to receive. There was a

contribution by the Minister of Immigration and Manpower, the Hon.

Flora MacDonald, and a contribution on behalf of the people of Canada

to enhance that line by $1.6 million, which is seeing people who are

today, right as we are in this building, working on the line to make it

attractive and to do the work underneath to build the park. So there is

that contribution from the federal government joined with the

contributions from the private sector, so it is going to be a pretty

exciting and pretty beautiful looking park.

You asked, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, about Mr. Ed

Sweeney. Yes, his responsibilities are for information. He is doing the

role that was done during the first phase of the line, where we had

people visit each and every property on the line to give information to

people on the line. I am told by the members for Surrey and by people

who I've talked to from Surrey that he is doing an excellent job of

communications in explaining, in case people are apprehensive of where

the line would go and very concerned about it. He's doing a good job on

that.

Now there were other questions outstanding. I would be very pleased

to answer them as I go along, but I understand my time is up.

MR. DAVIS: Just one or two other comments which may not call

for an answer from the minister. First on beautification, I gather that

the total budget is of the order of $5 million and that B.C. Transit's

initial estimate was a third of that. The federal government has now

come in with a matching amount, and the minister has organized a

private sector group that probably will come up with the balance. So

the line's appearance will be first-class when Expo opens.

The route, at least to New Westminster, basically is the old

interurban route, and the cost to the taxpayer of land acquisition has

been much less, because these lands are now owned in large part by B.C.

Hydro. So the beautification is occur-ring again in large part on lands

owned by the power company. There is — a question of maintenance —

maintaining these parks, bicycle paths, walking paths and so on. I

assume that the municipalities will take on some part of that job, but

there is the question of land title and so on, which may present some

difficulties. Certainly in the past it was easy to deal with Hydro

along the rail line by simply installing another rail line, but it may

be a little different dealing with parks and so on, when Hydro regards

that land as one of its assets for future disposal of one kind or

another.

I certainly hope the minister and B.C. Transit don't overlook the

possibility of using some stretches, especially close to stations, for

parking purposes. It may be an interim use, but nevertheless parking

close to stations will be a problem except at the ends of the line in

Surrey and in Coquitlam. So I hope that possibility is investigated.

The financial formula, which has now been announced and greeted with

some enthusiasm by the municipalities, I think will allay many fears

which were held at the local level as to impact on property taxation

and on other municipal taxes. I hope the government has another look at

the ceiling which still exists on the gasoline tax which can be levied

at the local level. I think that the gasoline tax is probably the best

one to use to supplement municipal income to meet the provincial share

of costs. This applies to buses, SeaBus and light rapid transit.

The main reason I point the finger at an enhanced gasoline tax is

that I'm convinced that the federal government is going to move into

that area in a big way anyway. For those who read the London Economist ,

this won't be news, but there was a lead

article under their American

survey

section a few months ago: "How Can President Reagan Balance his

Budget Overnight?" The brief answer was to charge the same level of

taxes on gasoline that the Europeans charge. In short order, this would

balance the budget in the United States. Well, you can bet that that

advice didn't pass unnoticed in Ottawa. If Prime Minister Mulroney and

his Finance Minister Mr. Wilson intend to do anything about their

budget deficit, you can be sure they're looking very closely at the

taxes on liquid fuels, and particularly the tax on gasoline. So for the

province to allow municipalities to raise the gasoline by another cent

or two a litre will be seen as peanuts in a scenario which may involve

taxes at the federal level increasing five to ten cents a litre over

the next year or two.

[4:30]

Finally, Metro Canada's role. Metro Canada is the Ontario Crown

corporation which basically developed the hardware and is in charge of

the operations of the system until it's

[ Page 5916 ]

satisfactorily run in. I'm convinced that this is as it should be.

First, it will make sure that Metro Canada, the Ontario company, is on

the hook for the delivery of a properly functioning system. This should

continue until all of the specifications are met. In other words, if

there are glitches, if there are problems, they're the Ontario

government corporation's problems and not ours. We had a great debate

over this issue about a year ago, and those who wanted B.C. Transit to

take over the run-in function didn't get their way. I'm glad about

that. I'm sure that we're doing the right thing by having a B.C.

corporation which is a subsidiary of Metro Canada carry out the run-in

phase, which could extend as much as two years — that is, to 1988.

The manpower requirement is much less than it would have been had

B.C. Transit begun to take over a year ago. Certainly the labour

problems, which would have followed from B.C. Transit being the

operating authority right away, have been much reduced. So I think the

system is basically in good hands. When it's turned over to B.C.

Transit to operate, it'll be right up to the specifications which were

demanded five years ago when the system was first chosen. If there are

any problems at all in operations, they'll be others' problems in terms

of successfully honouring their deliveries.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to return to speaking about this

minister's responsibility for the poor people and the disabled in this

province. I'm not going to talk about Manitoba. I'm always happy to

hear about Manitoba, so I hope she'll continue to read articles to me

about Manitoba. I don't know if you know this, Mr. Chairman, but the

very first black cowboys in this country showed up in Manitoba. So I've

always had a soft spot in my heart for Manitoba as a result of that,

because I didn't really know we had black cowboys until I started

reading about Manitoba and discovered that.

However, I think that when she is using statistics on Manitoba, or

anywhere else, it would be nice for her to at least tell us what year

she's referring to. The reality of the situation is that she was

reading from a table which dealt with benefits in 1983. She didn't tell

us that there was a 3 percent increase on January 1, 1984, in Manitoba

and another one on January 1, 1985. What we find when we compare that

with the British Columbia statistics is that the statistic she read for

1983 is the same figure we're dealing with in 1985. So use statistics —

tell the world that poor little Prince Edward Island pays better rates

than British Columbia.... I mean, if you're going to use

statistics, use them all.

MR. LAUK: They've got a lower standard of living.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

You know, don't be so selective about it. Talk about Alberta and

talk about Saskatchewan, but most of all talk about the fact that there

has not been an increase in the rates in this province for the last I

don't know how many years.

The thing that really scares me is the minister's explanation about the

people on income assistance. She says that the 236,977 people on income assistance

are not the same people who were on before. There's a turnover. She says

that within four months something like 73 percent of the people who are on income

assistance are off and new people are on. Now that's really frightening,

because that means that in March 1983 there were 196,000 people on. Well, if

73 percent of those people got off, how do you explain that by February 1984

there were 223,000 people on? That means that something in the neighbourhood

of 150,000 new people went on income assistance. Now 73 percent of those people

were off in four months, yet we find that by February 1985 there were 236,000

people on, which means that something in the neighbourhood of another 150,000

new people went on income assistance.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Everybody in British Columbia is

headed for welfare, and that's what's really scary about what the

government is doing to the economy. I'm not blaming the Minister of

Human Resources for this. I'm saying that she's standing idly by while

her government plunges the entire province into poverty. But I do not

think that she should stand up and make excuses for the fact that her

budget — which was, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed

out, in 1974.... It is now close to $1 billion.

What she should admit is that her government has done a rotten job

and that she has not discharged her mandate, which was to work for the

defence of the people in need in this province. It is true that more

and more people are getting poorer and poorer, and in the minister's

own words, it's not the same people. It's new people who are becoming

destitute as a direct result of this government's policies.

What we are also hearing is that the $125 a month — to cover food

and other essentials — which they received as of April 1984 is the same

$125 a month which they have now. I want to issue a challenge to the

Minister of Human Resources. I'm willing to go along with this; I'm

willing to take this challenge with her too. I want the Minister of

Human Resources to live, to feed herself, on $100 a month, which means

that she is going to spend $3.33 a day on food. I'm not going to ask

her to go out there and figure out how she can do it. I've done the

work for her.

She can, for $3.33, buy one loaf of bread for 82 cents that means

your cheapest white bread, none of this fancy wholewheat business — one

loaf of bread. She can get herself a little jar of margarine. She can

buy one orange, one can of soup and one can of spaghetti, and that will

come to $3.31. I had thought that I would throw in an orange, but we'd

be over the budget by 20 cents if we use the orange. That would have to

be the minister's diet for one day. In other words, for breakfast she'd

have bread and margarine and water, for lunch she'd have bread and

margarine and soup, and for dinner she'd have a tin of canned spaghetti

and an apple. That's what you live on when you have $3.33 a day to

spend on food.

I suggest that we take Sunday off and splurge at McDonald's. She

could go to McDonald's and have a hotcake breakfast for 69 cents. For

lunch she could have a hamburger and a small order of fries for 70

cents and 65 cents, and for dinner she could have a glass of water and

a small fillet of fish. That would bring her in at $3.24, so she would

save nine cents, which would contribute towards eating in the

legislative dining room, say, on Monday morning, at which time she

would have no breakfast, but she could have diet soup for 75 cents and

a scone for 50 cents. For dinner she could have an egg sandwich.

That's the kind of diet that you can afford on $3.31 a day. I want

to guarantee the minister two things. At the end of the month she will

be fat, and at the end of the month she will be sick. That explains why

so many people on income assistance

[ Page 5917 ]

use the health system so extensively and why so many of them are

obese, because it is not humanly possible to eat a nutritional diet on

$3.33 a day. Yet that is all that is allowed a person under the age of

1 know that the minister