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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5405 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 5405

UVic engineering faculty. Mr. Nicolson –– 5405

Public opinion polls. Mr. Hanson –– 5406

South African products in government liquor stores. Mr. Barnes –– 5406

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 5406

Tabling Documents –– 5406

Private Members' Statements

ALRT extension. Mr. Davis –– 5406

Mr. Reid

Mr. Williams

Mr. Parks

Forest Act (section 88). Mr. Howard –– 5408

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Capital punishment. Mrs. Dailly –– 5410

Hon. Mr. Smith

Tourism and the environment. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5411

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Budget debate

Ms. Brown –– 5413

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5416

Mr. Barnes –– 5419

FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our galleries and precincts today we have

80 students visiting us from Cloverdale Junior Secondary School. I

would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: Yesterday the Minister of International Trade

and Investment indicated part of the reason why northeast coal is in

trouble by announcing that 3 percent of $10 was 3 cents. I think he was

referring to the $8.50 decrease, which is close to $10, in terms of the

price the Japanese will be paying for coal from Quintette. Can he

confirm that the number should have been 30 cents, if that indeed is 3

percent of $10?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the erroneous

statements made yesterday by the member who asked the question, I have

asked my old department, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development, to look into this situation and to give me a report on the

effect on the royalties, and I'll be making a statement in the fullness

of time.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a profound question, and I'm sure all of

the department should be brought to bear on the question of what 3

percent of $10 is.

Can the minister advise us if meetings are currently taking place

with Quintette, between representatives of the government and the

company, to deal with their serious financial problems at this time?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that's kind of a dumb

question coming from that member, because the government does not.... I

don't know how many times we have to tell that member that it's the

company who put the money into the mine, and any negotiations would be,

I presume, between the company and its bankers. The government is not

involved in the financing of the Quintette mine. I just think it's an

erroneous question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy and

Mines (Hon. Mr. Rogers) confirm that the payment arrangement with Hydro

in respect to the mines will be impacted by this decision of the

Japanese, since the payments for the powerline into the mine depended

on increased prices for coal, not decreased prices?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll take that question as notice and get an

answer, because I haven't looked at the numbers on it. I'll get back to

you next week.

UVIC ENGINEERING FACULTY

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. On the basis of

certain commitments made by the Premier and the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the University of Victoria advertised

and filled the position of dean and chairman of a four-department faculty of

engineering, having 850 undergraduate students, 60 academic staff and a separate

200,000 square-foot engineering building. Will the Premier advise why the government

has reneged on that commitment, which he gave in November 1982?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government hasn't reneged, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a new question to the Premier.

When the Premier made that announcement on November 24, 1982, he stated

that the new faculty will spur industrial growth in Victoria,

especially in high technology. He said it was a vital preliminary step

in attracting industries to southern Vancouver Island. Does the Premier

now admit that he has put these economic prospects at risk?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker, because the commitment is

still there and the engineering school will proceed. Hopefully they

will proceed at a rate at which they can take advantage of the new

industrial incentives that will attract business and industry to this

province.

MR. NICOLSON: This is a new question to the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. Is the minister aware that

the government's actions which have led to the resignation of Dean

Bruton have seriously compromised the program to the point that the

faculty may not be accredited by the accreditation board of the

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I consider any statements of

that sort to be the height of academic irresponsibility. The matter of

accreditation of professional schools across Canada is something which

is provided at the end of a program, taking into account the quality of

examinations that are proffered to the graduating students and those

students' degree of accomplishment from the instruction they have had

during the program. That is something which I'm confident is well in

hand at the University of Victoria, as it proceeds with its program.

People who are attempting to undermine the program in mid-stream are

doing an enormous disservice to themselves and their academic

credibility, to the institutions and their credibility, and to the

students who enter these programs trusting the academic staff that are

their teachers. I condemn it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: It's the minister who has failed to keep

written commitments. But I want to ask the minister: is he aware that

this statement has come, not from the University of Victoria, but

from...? This opinion has been given by people in the Canadian Council

of Professional Engineers and spokesmen for that association.

[10:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: If it has come from such people, I would make the same statements about those people because....

Interjection.

[ Page 5406 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it's not a question of being wrong; it's

a question of being responsible. People, whether they're part of the

council or part of the faculty, deserve to be condemned for such

statements.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier

regarding public opinion polling. On March 13 the Premier told the

House that Decima Research had performed polling services for the

government. Will the Premier advise why payment for these services is

not listed in volume 2 of the Public Accounts of the province, which

lists details of payments made from government revenues?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that any polling that they've done would go through public accounts, and it may be in volume 3.

MR. HANSON: The fact that payments to Decima Research for

polling services are not recorded in Public Accounts suggests that

these accounts may have been submitted through a third party. Will the

Premier advise whether any such arrangement exists regarding Decima

Research and who the third party might be?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: Will the Premier advise whether any of the public

opinion polls performed by Decima and their operating subsidiary,

Summerhill Research Centre, contain questions asking which political

parties respondents would vote for, or have voted for in the past, and

on what basis?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I can't tell you that. I only know that

what research is done in government is coordinated through government

information services. The questions are developed by the various

ministries. I would hope that the member wouldn't confuse it with

political polls that are done by parties and others, including your own

— although I noticed in the last federal election that the NDP fired

their pollster because they didn't like what he was telling them.

MR. HANSON: Will the Premier advise the House what company is paid for the political polling that is done for the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if our party carries out

research, that's the business of the party. I have no intention of

dealing with political matters within this assembly for the benefit of

the member for Victoria, whose preoccupation is a partisan one rather

than the public interest.

SOUTH AFRICAN PRODUCTS

IN GOVERNMENT LIQUOR STORES

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer

Affairs. The world has been shocked by the death of a number of South African

citizens at the hands of a government which maintains the racist policy of apartheid.

Yesterday, as you know, some 17 or so individuals were shot by troops of the

South African regime on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre.

Has the minister now decided to remove South African products from liquor stores

in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker. The present policy will continue.

MR. BARNES: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister

suggesting that the government's position is the same as it was when

the former Attorney-General, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Hon. Mr. Gardom)...? Is it just a simple case of selective ethics?

Have morals no role to play in the sale of products coming from a

government that oppresses its citizens?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. There is a certain

latitude allowed to a member at question period, but you must place the

question.

MR. BARNES: My question is this: has the minister surveyed

public opinion with respect to this problem? Is he aware that at the

University of Victoria they are withdrawing funds from all activities

involved with South Africa, and that Seattle, for instance, has

withdrawn its funds, that Massachusetts, Connecticut and 20 other

states...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly a question

was placed prior to a debate taking place, and we must give the

minister an opportunity to respond.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member can appreciate that

the consumer makes the decision as to whether they feel strongly enough

not to purchase the product because of the problems in that country.

What you're asking for is the heavy hand of government to come along

and say this must not happen. If we follow that approach, then I guess

we should not sell grain to China, to Russia. Is that what you're

saying? We shouldn't buy Lada cars? We shouldn't trade in the world

marketplace? Short-sighted, Mr. Member. The issue is one with the

individual and their conscience.

Introduction of Bills

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Education for July 1, 1983 to June 30, 1984, and accompanying

statistical tables.

Private Members' Statements

LRT EXTENSION

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the topic I wish to address this

morning is the prospective extension of light rail rapid transit into

Surrey and Coquitlam. Approximately a year ago next May, the government

announced that light rail rapid transit

[ Page

5407 ]

would be extended from New Westminster across the

Fraser River into Surrey. Thereafter there was considerable activity.

Exact location of the bridge was determined and design of the bridge

proceeded. Location of the line from the 8th Street station in New

Westminster through to the bridge was determined in a series of

negotiations with the New Westminster city council, and the first

station on the south side of the river, Scott Road, was finally located.

In recent months not much has been heard about the extension, and

while the Speech from the Throne and the budget contained references to

light rail rapid transit, they didn't indicate that further

construction would proceed in the near future. Basically, my first

questions are: is the project on

schedule and will it be completed to

Surrey in 1987-88? Alternatively, is the government reviewing the

announcement of approximately a year ago?

The cost initially was said to be in the order of $200 million from

downtown New Westminster as far as Surrey Place. Subsequent studies

have shown that due to the uncertain subsurface conditions in the first

reaches in Surrey, and because of the need to go off the King George

Highway in the higher reaches of Surrey, the price might be as high as

$270 million.

I'm one who believes — I really believe — that a crossing over the

Fraser is essential. It's essential to the economics of the whole line.

Light rail rapid transit really doesn't do anything unique unless it

crosses the Fraser. Crossing into Surrey can add as much as a third to

the ridership. The investment to simply cross the Fraser, without going

all the way to Surrey Place, could be less than 20 percent of the $800

million capital cost of the first phase. A 20 percent increase in

investment can yield at least a third increase in ridership — that's

good economics. Therefore I think the government, or at least B.C.

Transit, must recommend a continuation of the crossing of the Fraser

phase at least as far as Scott Road.

I would question whether an investment of a further $100 million to

$120 million to go up to Surrey Place would be preferable to an

investment of the order of $100 million to extend the line from New

Westminster, essentially in the area of the north end of Pattullo

Bridge, to Brunette in Coquitlam. In other words, those incremental

dollars might be better spent in reaching into Coquitlam — and

incidentally serving the Lougheed Mall area as well — rather than going

to Surrey Place immediately. The incremental ridership going up to

Surrey Place is not significant — it certainly wouldn't be large —

whereas the increased ridership, if a Y were build extending to

Brunette, might be of the order of 15, even 20, percent and much more

than the perhaps 10 percent increase in investment involved.

So hopefully the government and B.C. Transit are looking very

seriously not only at building the bridge across the Fraser and getting

on with the crossing into Surrey immediately, but also at the best

economics of the alternatives of continuing on up to Surrey Place, as

opposed to building the Y to Brunette.

I hope that in future the Ministry of Transportation and Highways

will be much more involved in these decisions. We need really an

overall transportation policy. We need a coordination of

decision-making in the area of urban public transportation with the

broader economics of longer-distance transportation which falls under

Transportation and Highways.

Construction of the Annacis Highway bridge is being accelerated. I believe

that both that bridge and the rapid transit bridge across the Fraser are needed,

but my understanding is that those decisions essentially were made in separate

compartments. There should have been a coordinated approach to the overall requirements

of those who live south of the Fraser River and need access to Vancouver, Burnaby

and New Westminster, and of the Coquitlam area. Coquitlam and Surrey are the

two fastest growing areas in the lower mainland. They should be better served

with public transportation, and I personally believe that light rail rapid transit

reaching towards both of them would be the best policy.

[10:30]

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in making a member's statement in

response to the question raised by the member for North

Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis), I wanted to comment in relation to the

requirement for the ALRT line going right into the Surrey Place

location. The first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) and I just last

month had meetings in Surrey with the B.C. Transit people in relation

to the alignment. The alignments were agreed to by two particular

meetings on two separate evenings, and attracted more than 500 people

to both of the hearings, with not a negative response from anybody in

the audience as to the proposed alignments and the highly recommended

alignment.

But the member points out that there is a 30 percent increase in

ridership as a result of the crossing of the Fraser River. The most

interesting thing is that it also services Langley by virtue of the

Fraser Highway, at Surrey Place. It also serves White Rock.

The numbers in relation to the budget are very interesting. The

first phase was estimated by the engineers to cost somewhere around

$870 million, and it's now coming out around $800 million, which shows

that the timing is right to get on with the construction, because

they're coming in about 20 percent under estimates. Since the

engineers' estimates on the first phase across to Surrey are accurate

on the first estimates, I would suggest we would probably be under $200

million for that extension, rather than the $200 million which has been

just recently estimated.

So, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Surrey and the second member

for Surrey would encourage the extension to Surrey Place of the ALRT as

soon as possible, giving second recognition to the Coquitlam extension.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's extraordinary. Imagine $270 million to extend this costly system just across the river into north Surrey....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: To Surrey Place. Well, it's still in north Surrey. Surrey Place is at the King George Highway — come on!

...versus using the British Columbia Hydro railway that's already

there. Because they've got this technology, they're locked into

high-cost solutions at every stage of the game in terms of serving the

suburbs. Already we have the B.C. Hydro railway going through

Kerrisdale to Richmond. We could be using existing technology in

serving Richmond; we could be using existing technology by using the

Central Park right-of-way, which is the B.C. Hydro railway; we could be

using the B.C. Hydro railway that goes through north Surrey, which goes

through Newton and which goes out into

[ Page 5408 ]

the Fraser Valley; we could be using the CPR, which

goes out to Mission and serves the other part of the Fraser Valley — at

minuscule cost compared to the ALRT system that you've embarked on.

It's just bad fiscal management, gambling with technology that has

locked this government into countless high-cost solutions.

There are examples down the coast, in San Diego and in Portland,

that show us that if we had used existing technology we could have done

this at a fraction of the cost and not only served north Surrey but

also Mission, Langley and the Fraser Valley for the same money as well.

That's the problem, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PARKS: I am very pleased to have my colleague raise this

subject in the House this morning. Obviously the point that this member

makes can only be very briefly reiterated by me in the limited time.

The economics of the whole line would be tremendously enhanced by the

Coquitlam extension. It's coincidental that in this morning's Times-Colonist

there's a reference from a West German transportation consultant noting

the lack of park-and-rides throughout the Vancouver-New Westminster

leg. It so happens that Coquitlam has ideal park-and-ride facilities

to, in effect, pull in the whole catchment basin of the north side of

the river, from Maple Ridge and Mission right into the Coquitlams. It

would be a tremendous enhancement to the ALRT line. So I applaud the

comments of my colleague, and I encourage the government to give speedy

consideration and approval to that extension.

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

East (Mr. Williams) talks about existing technology or proven

technology. Let me draw a picture: he's really talking about the

technology that existed around the turn of the century. He wants to go

back to the old interurban system, a revival of which would have cost

the taxpayer roughly half as much as the new system that's being built,

so obviously there would have been a saving in capital costs. Of course

it had operators, so there wouldn't have been a saving in operating

costs.

Let me describe it. It was a single-line system. It was not

double-tracked. Secondly, it crossed streets at grade level, so gates

had to come down wherever it crossed streets.

You have the problem today with so-called modem technology in

Calgary, where the new rapid transit system runs along the street with

buses and automobiles crossing at right angles and with red lights

stopping it every second block. That's not rapid transit.

Whereas we can now guarantee 30 minutes from Surrey Place to the

waterfront in Vancouver, there is no way with today's traffic that the

so-called conventional, proven, old-style technology would deliver

people within an hour. People will not ride the old-type system. They

deserted it wholesale in the forties and fifties for the automobile,

and you have to improve on the automobile. Hence ALRT in its present

mode.

FOREST ACT (SECTION 88)

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, when a group has the opportunity to

spend somebody else's money, there needs to be adequate proper checks

and balances against the potential for abuse. That's precisely what....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, if you want to mention school boards, I can

deal with that because the two things are running counter here in this

government.

That's what

section 88 does. It permits licensees under the act to

spend taxpayers' money for certain purposes like road-building and

silviculture and the like and then to get a credit for that money that

has been spent. They are basically operating in a trust capacity

insofar as the people of B.C. are concerned. They have that obligation

and requirement under

section 88 — at least in a philosophic sense,

even though it's not stated there precisely — to act in a trusting way

to deal with the people's money. There needs to be responsibility,

there needs to be accounting and there need to be assurances given to

the general public — who are basically putting up the money — that the

thing is done properly and that the funds are spent properly.

There are two aspects of

section 88 involved in a check-and-balance

factor. One is prior approval of the work to be done or the project to

be undertaken. The other is the subsequent checking to see that the

work performed was in fact justified by virtue of the cost claimed for

doing that particular work.

In former debates in this House, I had the opportunity during the

estimates, I believe it was, of the Ministry of Forests — to raise the

question that there were inadequacies in the check-and-balance system,

and that there were abuses that had taken place. The minister, in his

reply, denied that that was the case and countered by saying that if I

had any specifies with respect to that, I should draw them to his

attention.

But I submit to you that the checks and the balances have not been

in place, and that you will find and that there have been findings that

a duplication of costs could be involved — in other words, the same

costs could be identified twice or paid twice for the same amount of

work — and that the cost used of a project to a licensee might not be

reliable. That has existed and still exists.

Insofar as the requirement for prior approval of projects, it's been

discovered that some — not all, some.... Unfortunately I cannot

identify them, because I don't know who they are; and I appreciate that

by doing this you tend to label everybody in the same category, but

this is not my labelling, it is somebody else's. It has been discovered

that some regional managers of forests did not review or approve

projects prior to the licensee's embarking upon those projects, and

that many projects have never been inspected after the work was done.

MR. WILLIAMS: Shame! Cost plus.

MR. HOWARD: Now that's exactly what that is, cost plus

whatever you can nail on to the top of it. I'm not blaming the

licensees for this. They're operating in this type of System. The

problem is that the law is inadequate. The problem is that

section 88

permits licensees to spend taxpayers' money — in fact, not only permits

them to do it but demands that they do it — and doesn't institute an

adequate system of accounting and responsibilities. On the demand side

of accounting, it isn't there. The law is inadequate. The

administration of the law of

section 88 is inadequate. It has failed to

protect the public interest.

[ Page 5409 ]

Perhaps because of that failure, Mr. Speaker, to protect the public

interest, we have the situation, identified and announced by officials

in the ministry, of something in the neighbourhood of $30 million to

$40 million being owed by the people of B.C. to licensees under the

Forest Act because of activities under

section 88. It seems to me that

what is required is a very thorough examination of the question of

checks, balances and accountability, and a requirement that the

ministry carry out its obligations to serve the public interest — that

it not abandon the public interest, simply to serve the private sector.

All these difficulties flow from that philosophical blindness on the

part of this government, which says: "The private sector can do no

wrong. All we have to do is provide them with the opportunity to

flourish, and they can do no wrong." That type of attitude says, "The

public interest be damned, " and that's not good enough in this day and

age.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the subject discussed by the

member for Skeena is the same subject he has been having correspondence

about with the auditor-general. It seems strange to me that the

innuendo he brings forward has in fact been refuted by the

auditor-general herself. I don't approach life or my job with the

assumption that everyone is a thief. That member may; I don't.

We do have balances in place. I'll read part of the response from

the auditor-general's letter to that member. Referring to

section 88,

she said: "These represent eligible claims against future billings by

the province in respect of stumpage fees. Each year these credits are

subject to my office's audit procedures. Credits recorded in the

accounts of the province are tested to ensure that they were properly

approved and calculated, and represent valid expenditures under

section

88 of the act."

In his letter to the auditor-general that member apparently took

several statements from her report to the Legislature and from further,

more detailed reports that the auditor-general provides to the

ministry. He raised several points she had mentioned in her report. One

is that inspections are not always carried out. I must remind members

that this is the 1981 auditor-general's report. She says: "Inspections

are not always carried out. Branches have not yet developed standards

for

section 88 projects. Limited monitoring of compliance policy by the

evaluation branch and projects started and completed before an addendum

was signed...." These are all, I think, very valid questions raised by

the auditor-general in 1981, which was very early in the use of

section

1 would point out to the members, Mr. Speaker, that

section 88 is

not the payment of costs incurred for approved work. The payment is for

the estimate of a reasonable cost for the incurred work. Certainly it's

not a cost-plus situation. We do not pay.... If the actual cost to the

licensee is higher, it is not paid at all. At times, if a licensee is

super-efficient, he saves both himself and the government money.

[10:45]

In response to those four questions and points raised.... Regarding

inspections not carried out, since that time we have developed very

detailed manuals — policy manuals and operations manuals — for the

ministry. Time permitting, I'll read from some of these manuals, and I

would be very happy if the member.... I don't know if he has a set of

the policy manuals from the ministry or not; if he doesn't, I can

certainly provide him and his caucus with them. They are changing from

day to day. I think, perhaps, you have them. If you don't, Mr. Member,

please signify, and I will make sure that you do get such policy

manuals.

Part of the

section 88 manual says: "Inspections must be completed

within 60 days of receipt of the cost claim, except where weather or

some other major factor precludes it." The valuation branch conducts an

annual review to ensure compliance with established policies. During

the past three years products have been selected at random to ensure

all necessary documentation, including a final inspection report, is

available in the project file. Of the projects reviewed, 95.7 percent

of the audited dollar value was inspected, and inspection reports were

on file. It is not possible to inspect every foot of every road that is

built under

section 88, but we do have a very detailed inspection

process and a detailed auditing process. We do have a system of

penalties where abuses take place.

The member is perhaps suggesting, for example, that every person who

does business in Canada should have a tax auditor inspecting and

supervising every transaction that takes place, so that we can be sure

that when they fill out their income tax returns they are not trying to

cheat the government. We have a little more faith in the public of

Canada than that.

Other comments raised in the report. For example, it said that

branches had not yet developed standards for

section 88 projects. The

procedures manual spells out in detail just what these procedures are.

At the time of the auditor-general's report we were in the process of

putting together this policy, and it is now fully in place.

He also stated that the ministry should set up systems to monitor

district and regional compliance with established policies. I have

before me, Mr. Speaker, very detailed procedures as to just exactly

what must take place in such circumstances, as is the case with the

other points.

We have responded in great detail to the auditor- general's report,

and I feel confident that the public interest is properly looked after

in compliance with

section 88 of the Forest Act.

I do thank the member for raising it. Although the auditor-general's

report is old, we have complied with those recommendations made.

MR. HOWARD: Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I get the changes to the

policy manual before the minister does. It's not a question of whether

I don't have them or haven't looked at them.

One of the interesting things is that on an earlier occasion when I

raised this matter, he, in this Legislature, denied the existence of

any such examination. Now he has been smoked out to in fact admit that

yes, the inadequacies that I pointed out had in fact taken place. There

is no guarantee, because none of this takes place in the eyes of the

general public. It all takes place within the secrecy of government.

There is no guarantee in the future that the public interest will be

properly protected.

If, for argument's sake, the applications for rollovers of forest

licences and the like into TFLs takes place, and if they're approved,

that will mean that more than half of the forest land in British

Columbia will be under the control of groups able to operate under

section 88. With that increase in authority and control, you need a

concomitant increase in the right to protect the public interest. It

hasn't been done up until now. There have been abuses.

It's not a question of identifying anybody as a thief. That may come to the minister's mind from time to time. It does

[ Page 5410 ]

not come to mind. What comes to my mind is that

they make laws in this place that unfortunately put people in a

position of being in a conflict of interest. It's unfair to those

individuals for the law to subject them to that. It would be much more

appropriate, I think, if the minister would undertake to table in the

House the documentation with respect to the inspections and the

approvals under

section 88. He's not interested in doing that, because

that would be revealing to the general public something he doesn't want

the general public to know.

It would be equally valuable if some mechanism could be found to

indicate the element of administrative costs in all of this, what that

is charged against and how many people are involved, just so we'll have

an idea and an assurance that the people who are placed in a conflict

of interest by this government are functioning properly.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General of British

Columbia (Hon. Mr. Smith), has been making a number of statements

recently expressing his position that we should have the return of

capital punishment in Canada. He has even gone further than advocating

the return of capital punishment. I understand that he wants to change

the Criminal Code of Canada so that the provinces will also be involved

in making a decision, if I understand correctly, on the return of

capital punishment. The very fact that the Attorney-General has gone

this far has brought this whole serious problem into the provincial

arena. That is why I am going to speak very briefly on this matter.

I am speaking personally on this matter because I have been a

long-time opponent of capital punishment. I remain unalterably opposed

to the reinstatement of it. In my brief time I want to give a few

reasons.

Contrary to popular beliefs, to be against capital punishment is not

a bleeding-heart liberal approach to dealing with murders. In fact it's

just the opposite. Most opponents of capital punishment base their

opposition on reason and rationality.

Here are some of my reasons, and certainly the reasons of many other

people in our country. There is no convincing volume of evidence that

those countries which retain the death penalty are any freer of capital

crimes than those which have not had the death penalty. The United

States has recently reinstated the death penalty. I believe they have

put to death over 40 people in the United States. I don't have the

accurate figures, but I know it's at least that. At the present time

there are 4,000 potential candidates on death row awaiting the blood

bath in the United States. Yet the interesting thing to note, Mr.

of violent crimes. As a matter of fact, compared to other countries, in

Europe particularly, where they do not have capital punishment, the

rate of violent crimes in the United States is one of the highest.

Deterrent: yes, many people say it's a deterrent. Yes, the fear of

death will deter normal persons. But are the people who commit murder

normal? Certainly you cannot consider to be mentally healthy or normal

a person who has become so mentally sick that he will take another life

or ravage a child.

Mr. Speaker, society has no right to take from a person something

which cannot be restored. If we hang a person and then find a mistake

has been made, nothing can be done to make amends.

An interesting point here is that when you have capital punishment,

you find that many juries are reluctant to find the person before them

guilty of murder in the first degree, which could impose the penalty of

death. That's another rational point which should be considered.

The death penalty is a negative attempt to promote the safety of

society. We need better law enforcement. There are too many unsolved

crimes in this country. Recently in Esquimalt a judge really was

concerned about the long time and the poor handling of one case which

came before him. One of the best deterrents is for the criminal to know

that he will be found out, and he will be incarcerated. For any

psychotics, I would certainly say an indeterminate sentence.

But basically — and I'd like to conclude with this, Mr. Speaker —

society has major responsibilities in this area. We must tackle the

problems that breed criminals. One of the most famous examples of that

is the case of President John Kennedy, who was assassinated by Oswald.

It was discovered in analyzing the man who assassinated John Kennedy

that he was a very disturbed child; his teachers and other people had

informed whoever was involved, the human service people in his area,

that here was a very sick child who needed psychiatric attention, which

was never given to him.

So my point is, let's not take the negative way; let's not take the

easy way of saying let's go back to capital punishment. Let us get

together, work together so that we can produce a society which will not

brutalize itself by restoring once more what they consider to be a

deterrent and which will not be a deterrent.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to congratulate the member for Burnaby

North on her views, which she expressed very sincerely and

straightforwardly. This subject is one, I think, in which you really

begin on the basis of philosophy and conscience, not on the basis of

political stripe. There are two widely differing views in this country

on the subject.

Where I come from on this subject is that we in Canada do have a

need to deal with the issue of violent crime. I agree with the member

on this. There is no doubt in my mind that capital punishment is not a

panacea or the answer to all the problems of violent crime. Violent

crime has to be assaulted on many fronts.

We probably need a national commission on violent crime, the way the

president had in the United States. The Canadian Minister of Justice is

looking at a proposal to have such a commission. We need to have, right

across this country, total cooperation and integration of all our

crime-fighting facilities, to pool our information and do a better job

of deterring and combatting violent and organized crime.

But I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the debate on capital

punishment we often lose sight of one forgotten person in the whole

justice system, a person who has really been quite ignored

historically. None of us knows that more than those of us who have

practised criminal law, like the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), myself

and some others. That person is the victim. The victim is really the

forgotten person in the sausage machine. If a criminal charge is laid,

the victim has to come forward and be interrogated, interviewed, given

attendances in court, new attendances, cases are adjourned, and the

victim is often told very little and is forced to come in and then be

cross-examined in a courtroom several times before a person is brought

to justice. Then if that person is brought to justice, and the sentence

is not seen

[ Page 5411 ]

to be appropriate or not seen to be a sentence that deters others,

then the victim wonders what it was all for. It all seems in vain.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker, when I had the honour to debate this matter at a conference of

the Canadian bar last month in very distinguished company, with Edward Greenspan

and with distinguished civil libertarians speaking, like Maurice Schumiacher

and Prof. Schmeiser from Saskatoon, the most moving performance in the whole

debate was a lady who came forward, Mrs. McCord, who was the wife of a county

court judge in Ontario whose boy had been murdered. She described her whole

experience through the court system. I can tell you that we lose sight of the

victim when we debate these matters. Can there be any way to deter a person

who has already committed the crime of premeditated murder, and that person

is incarcerated in an institution, and their mind is set on only one thing,

and that is to escape? What is to deter that person from committing the crime

of murder again in the course of his escape? There is absolutely nothing except

a second, third or fourth life sentence. What I say is: you have to have the

death penalty. Society has to have the death penalty as the only possible deterrent

for people in that category.

What is to deter also the professional contract killer, the person

who for $25,000, $50,000 or a sum of money will kill another person for

gain, and has already done so? What is to deter that person, besides

the death penalty? You have to have the death penalty for a very few

categories of crimes and criminals, and you use that penalty very

sparingly. You have all the safeguards of the justice system there,

including the power of commutation. The main reason that lawyers shy

away as a group from endorsing the death penalty is that they believe

there is that chance of making a mistake, and there is that frailty in

the system.

We all know of the Christie case in Britain. There is one documented

case in Canada, in our short history, back in the last century where it

appears that an innocent man was executed. So they shy away from it

because they believe that a mistake can be made. Any justice system is

human, and you can make a mistake. But if you have a commutation

system, you can safeguard, and the justice system can take care of that.

I want to welcome the debate that we had here, and thank the member for bringing this important issue forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. At this time I must go back to the proponent for concluding remarks.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the fact that the Attorney-General

said that he too is concerned with the whole aspect of crime in Canada

and suggested that perhaps there's going to be a major commission or

study. We certainly are pleased to hear that. I must say, though, that

the usual arguments did come up for reinstatement that I've heard so

many times. The minister suggested the fact that, well, maybe we should

have capital punishment for certain people. I think the answer to that

is: you can't be just a little bit pregnant, Mr. Attorney-General. You

can't be just a little bit for capital punishment.

My point is that it's a basic principle here. The taking of a life,

to my mind, is something that denigrates the state and the country. In

my opinion, it's often felt that the countries that do away with

capital punishment are showing that they have a conscience. But I also

do not feel that the minister has given any particularly reasonable

arguments, to my mind, to prove to me and many others that it really is

a deterrent. We all want to stop murders; there's no question about

that. Where we disagree is how.

I'd simply like to conclude by saying that to teach society it is wrong to kill, you yourself do not kill.

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to take the opportunity to make a

statement on tourism and the necessity for the protection of

environmental quality. I'm pleased to see that both the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and the new Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Pelton) are here. I look forward to their input in the matter.

I want to begin by making a simple quotation. That quote reads: "The

natural heritage of British Columbia, its mountains and coastal

scenery, are the province's most obvious and dramatic attraction." That

quotation is extracted from a recent Canada-British Columbia agreement

on the travel industry. I think that the statement recognizes that the

ability to attract the tourist dollar is inextricably linked to our

environmental heritage. The fact is that tourism in British Columbia is

synonymous with both recreation and outdoor leisure activities.

In the past British Columbia has marketed its tourism industry

using, if I may say, the macho image — the tough, wild, great outdoors;

"Super, Natural British Columbia." Not to fault that, but the image

does emphasize our environmental strengths: our forests, our mountains,

our clean lakes and our streams. The fact is that the tourism action

plan by the Ministry of Tourism fails to recognize or advance a single

thought about the preservation of this resource, on which the industry

depends.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In British Columbia we have allowed a slow degradation of our prime

attractions, if you witness the urban sprawl and careless resource

utilization. Often we find conflicts in resource use. Witness, for

example, the precipitous decline of our salmon stocks and our steelhead

fisheries, the degradation of wildlife due to the loss of winter range,

the pollution of our coastal waters, the eutrophication of our inland

lakes through excessive nutrient loading, and of course the problem of

acid rain.

Not to place the blame on any specific ministry or any individual,

of course; the blame is a part of all of us. It's due to government

inaction at all levels that we're responsible for this slow degradation

in environmental quality. As a result, we're now in danger of losing

our environmental heritage, and possibly losing our tourist dollar,

which is linked to that. Tourism, simply put, depends upon a healthy

environment. If you need verification of that, ask the fishing guide in

Campbell River, or ask the owner of a resort in the Okanagan. They

understand the linkage between environment and the tourist dollar.

As an example, Mr. Speaker, the Okanagan basin represents or

demonstrates the growing legacy of our carelessness. The lakes in the

Okanagan have for years had excessive nutrient-loading due to

agricultural runoff and the disposal of effluent into the bodies of

water. Our lakes are dying, Mr. Speaker, and as a result our tourism is

in danger of dying also. Simply put, people won't swim in lakes that

are choked with

[ Page 5412 ]

weeds or in which sewage is placed. The milfoil weed, of course, is

encouraged by the groundwater pollution, the agricultural runoff and

the disposal of sewage. To cite a specific example, Mr. Speaker, the

city of Vernon used to be a leader in how they handled their effluent

disposal, but they've run out of room for the spray application of

effluent. As a result, sewage now goes into Okanagan Lake. The city has

just begun a program of dumping sewage — as a matter of fact, on

Tuesday. They have appealed a number of times to the government to

resolve this crisis, because what is needed is not new technology but

new dollars. Money is the solution to that problem. As I mentioned, on

Tuesday it's had to dump more sewage into the lake, and there is

particular environmental and health concern regarding that. Simply put,

Mr. Speaker, the government can no longer afford to ignore such

problems any longer.

The other week I asked the Minister of Tourism to join me in an

appeal to the former Minister of Environment to upgrade the funding

levels for our milfoil harvesting program. The minister refused. I

really believe he took my comments too lightly, and the problem

shouldn't be taken lightly. It's far too serious for that.

If I may, I will read a couple of quotations of recent articles in

local papers. To go back to the provincial perspective, one deals with

the Inside Passage up the west coast. It's an

article on the economic

benefits of cruise shipping along the Inside Passage, and it

demonstrates the importance of tourism in British Columbia. It says:

"...the Ministry of Forests is at this moment planning

extensive logging operations in the Grenville Channel. The channel is one of

the narrowest and most spectacular of the Inside Passage routes. Tourists take

the cruises to experience the visual delight of the rugged coastal landscape.

The cruise industry depends on the quality of that landscape, not merely on

the boat-deck offerings of French wines and beauty parlors.

"It is time for the government to make some basic

choices about tourism. If we insist on trying to sell 'Super, Natural

British Columbia,' then let's deliver a credible product."

I turn now to a recent

article in the Sun . This is from a former tourist from the Seattle area.

"I'm sorry, but I won't be accepting the invitation

from B.C. Tourism Minister Claude Richmond to come up and visit 'Super,

Natural' British Columbia. Despite the minister's alluring invitation,

oft repeated in so many advertisements in U.S. publications, I and so

many others do not wish to see the devastated slopes of Mount

Arrowsmith, the desolate hillsides of Barkley Sound, the clearcuts

running to the shores of lakes we once loved in the Cariboo...."

Mr. Speaker, I see my red light is on. In

summary, it says:

"The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have

uncontrolled, unregulated development and the benefits of tourism at

the same time."

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In response to the member's statement, I

will try to answer his comments without treading on the areas of other

ministers of government, but I feel some of them are a little far-out

and a little off-base.

Let me start with his last comment first. The letter to the Sun

written by a fellow from the States — which I answered, by the way — is

full of inaccuracies and generalizations and overstatement. It's very

poetically written, as I said, and some of it rolls off the tongue very

well, but it's very inaccurate.

We in Tourism and in this government recognize very well the

environmental heritage that we have. I take umbrage at the statement

that we are in danger of losing our environmental heritage. It is

simply not true. We have made dramatic improvements in the quality of

the environment in this province over the last few years — under this

government, I might add. Some of the most stringent laws and

regulations regarding the environment to be found anywhere are found in

British Columbia. We are continuing to upgrade the quality and to test

the quality of our environment, and I will ask the Minister of

Environment to remark on that.

The notion that all our ads are macho ones appealing to the

Marlboro-type man is absolute nonsense. If you've been watching our

advertising campaign over the last couple of years, you will have seen

ads advertising all aspects of tourism in this province, from city life

to passive areas to the outdoors — the hiker, the mountain climber. In

his opening statement, to have singled out one area of the province and

said it is the most valuable item we have in tourism is not true. I

don't think the people in the interior would take kindly to that

statement, or those who live in the Rocky Mountains or the Kootenays or

wherever. We try very diligently not to single out any one area of the

province and promote it over any other area.

The resource utilization that he commented about I think is a

well-thought-out and well-planned item on our agenda but is one better

left to other ministers to talk about, specifically the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers). We all realize that there have

been problems in the salmon fishery in this province and I think they

are well addressed by the recent treaty signed between our two

countries. There's no doubt that there is a problem, and it probably

should have been addressed many years ago. They've been trying for 15

years or more to sign that treaty. Thankfully they've finally signed it

and we can get on with the job of enhancing and bringing back our

salmon stocks, and I'm sure that we will.

There is an overview of the Ministry of Environment that I like, and that I'll read quickly into the record:

"The generalized goal of the Ministry of Environment..."

I'd like to emphasize that the Ministry of Tourism shares this goal.

"...is to maintain a quality environment consistent

with the needs and aspirations of the people of British Columbia. Conservation

of B.C.'s natural environment is fundamental to the social and economic

well-being of the province. Unpolluted air, water and lands, together with the

plants and animals they support, represent our natural heritage. These natural

resources not only form the basis for much of the province's employment

and recreational (tourist) opportunities, but are a vital and irreplaceable

asset to be preserved and protected."

I align myself fully, as does this government, with this objective of the Ministry

of Environment.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of

Environment to make a few comments regarding some of the programs that

his ministry has in place.

[ Page 5413 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He'll have to be very brief,

HON. MR. PELTON: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I could take quite

a long time, because the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr.

MacWilliam) brought forward quite a number of individual items that

should be addressed in that same way. Suffice it to say that we do have

in the ministry an ongoing program of evaluating and checking various

elements of the environment that are important to us — for example, the

element of water, which is so important to every one of us, The

monitoring of water quality has been going on in this province for over

15 years. During the past few years we have noticed some dramatic

improvements in the quality of water in areas where previously there

were some problems.

I could take some time to give you a lot of statistics on that but

the red light is on. I would not like to encroach upon the little bit

of time you have left, hon. member, so I'll sit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the proponent can reply.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my address, I must

say that I have found the Minister of Environment to be most

approachable. He's agreed to come up with me and look at the problems

in the Vernon area, and I commend him for that.

I find the Minister of Tourism's statement rather interesting,

because he seems to be at odds with the very statements and

recommendations made in manuals submitted from his ministry. I question

that whole focus.

I would like to make some specific recommendations, and I ask leave to table these recommendations at the conclusion.

First, I would like to recommend that the Minister of Tourism and

the Minister of Environment formulate a joint statement of policy on

tourism and environment. Secondly, that this plan attempt to identify

and preserve critical resources important to the tourism industry.

Thirdly, that this government consider legislation similar to the

preservation on every agency of government. Fourthly, that this

government strengthen present legislation to monitor development and

minimize environmental land use conflicts. Fifthly, that this

government extend the powers of the present Environment and Land Use

Act in order to increase our ability to monitor the overall

environmental picture.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I would say it's time again to put our

money where our mouth is. If we do have a commitment to tourism — and I

believe the minister does — and also a commitment to job creation and

long-term economic stability, those programs must be predicated on a

sound and rational commitment to environmental preservation in British

Columbia.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MS. BROWN: In rising to speak against the budget and to

indicate my lack of support for it, I want to start out by associating

myself with the comments made by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes) earlier this morning, and to express my outrage and anger that

this government continues to emotionally, morally and economically

support the apartheid government of South Africa, which continues to

murder black people unchecked.

In any event, I think that this budget gives us an opportunity to

pose the question of what kind of care the children of British Columbia

are getting when they fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of

Human Resources. There are only two comments in the budget that have

anything to do with that ministry. One is the allusion to the

government's indication of increasing the budget for income assistance

without actually increasing the rates themselves. This is a clear

indication that the government is budgeting for increased unemployment.

By putting in a 2 percent increase in GAIN benefits and holding GAIN

rates at the 1982 level, the government is clearly saying that as a

result of its policies and this budget there are going to be more

people needing income assistance in the future.

The only other mention of the ministry has to do with the

maintenance program which the government is conducting as a pilot

project in Richmond and which is going to be extended to the Vancouver

area. When we take a look at the estimate book itself, we find that in

fact the government is cutting $2 million from the budget of the

department as it affects services to children and families.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you realize that a large number of

children fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human

Resources. By law the ministry has been mandated to intervene whenever

a child in this province is perceived to be in need of care and

protection. Through the process of apprehension, the ministry can move

in and remove a child from any family relationship or other

relationship on the basis that that child is in clear and imminent

danger, either physically, emotionally or in some other respect. As a

result of that, the Ministry of Human Resources then becomes the parent

in law of that child. I think that it's time we started looking at just

what kind of parent the government and the ministry has been.

I want to begin by giving you a couple of statistics. Incidentally,

the parenting only goes on until the child is age 19. When 60 percent

of the children who are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human

Resources reach the age of 19, they go onto welfare. They don't go out

and find a job; they don't go into a trade; they don't go into a

profession; they go right onto income assistance. Sixty percent — a

clear indictment of the Ministry of Human Resources as a parent.

Another statistic: 10 to 12 percent of the teenage prostitutes in this province

are under the age of 15. Those prostitutes — most of them — are wards of the

Ministry of Human Resources. Increasingly we are being told that younger and

younger children, many of them wards of the Ministry of Human Resources, are

turning to prostitution as a way of life.

We have heard about the resurgence of gangs in the Chinatown area

and in Surrey and Langley in the Vancouver area, and in speaking with

social workers we are told that most of those kids are wards of the

Ministry of Human Resources.

Many of the children that the ministry is supposed to be taking care

of are ending up on the streets. Many of them are turning to

prostitution. When they reach the age of maturity and become adults, 60

percent of them go straight from being wards of the ministry onto

income assistance. Yet what do we find in this budget? Is there an

increase in funding to the Ministry of Human Resources to put into

place the kinds of

[ Page 5414 ]

resources necessary to make that ministry a better parent than it is

now? I don't think anyone will question the statistics that show that

the ministry is a very bad parent. Some $2 million less will be spent

this year than was spent last year in servicing the children and

families of the province. I want to tell you that the ministry

underspent that portion of its budget last year as well.

Mr. Speaker, there isn't any question that children have become the

most tragic victims of this government's cutback program. The ministry

has responded to the needs of families and children by eliminating

family support workers, by destroying the streetworker program, by

wiping out child abuse teams, removing social workers from the school

system and wiping out other resources which families and children need.

It is becoming increasingly clear that those actions now stand as an

indictment of an uncaring government, willing to sacrifice children in

the pursuit of ideology.

The elimination of the family and children's resources has meant

that instead of social workers being involved in preventive services,

they can now only deliver crisis services. They cannot move in, as a

family support worker used to do, into a family which is giving some

indication that it is in trouble. They can't try to help that family

deal with its problem or try to help it stay together and keep those

children in the home. Instead, it can only intervene now when a crisis

occurs — when the problem has gone to the state where the family is

shattered, the children are damaged and on the streets and in trouble

with the law or whatever. That is the point at which the ministry can

now intervene.

Complaints are coming in to all of the constituency offices around

the province that when a complaint of child abuse is laid, it is taking

a longer and longer time before a social worker can get out to

investigate that complaint. In the meantime, the child remains in an

abusing situation. Mr. Speaker, more and more children are running away

from home. A total of 37.9 percent of the kids on the streets — and

this is the ministry's own statistic — have been previously abused.

They are running away from abusive experiences or an abusing home. Mr.

Speaker, 58.6 percent of those kids, when they hit the streets — again,

using the ministry's own statistics — are defined as being sexually

exploited while they are on the streets. By any measurement, there is

no question that as a parent the ministry and the government have

failed.

Three years ago the ministry decided to terminate its streetworker

program in Chinatown. At the time that program was terminated there

were no gangs in Chinatown. Three years later, by trying to save money

by terminating a streetworker program, we are finding that money is now

being spent by the Attorney-General's ministry and by the city of

Vancouver to beef up the police force in that area to deal with the

gang problem.

We listen to Surrey, where people are storming the council talking

about hiring more police to deal with the gang problem. Again, many of

those children are wards of the Ministry of Human Resources. A

streetworker program could have made that unnecessary. There isn't any

question that people who have used the streetworker program.... If

you listen to the police in the city of North Vancouver, they all speak

about the preventive powers of having a worker on the street involved

with the young children, directing them towards positive activity, and

away from the negative kinds of things, such as vandalism, breaking and

entering, harassing people and that kind of thing.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, I have here an

article from the Vancouver Sun

dated January 1985. They are talking about the fact that North

Vancouver involved itself in a streetworker program last year because

they were alarmed by the growing vandalism by the young people. They

stated that as a direct result of that program, the RCMP have said that

there has been a substantial drop in juvenile crime. The kids now have

someone to listen to them and to give them a helping hand to organize

activities — everything from going to the movies to hiking up the

mountains. The streetworker job is one which has proven itself down

through the ages. There used to be a very good streetworker program in

Vancouver prior to the ministry's decision to wipe it out.

The chairperson of the Vancouver School Board, Dr. Weinstein, tells

us that children in Vancouver are going to school hungry in the

morning. The Vancouver School Board put in place a survey of six

greater Vancouver schools. It turned out that something like 25 percent

of kids in those schools were showing up hungry. Many of them were

coming with no breakfast. In many of those schools the teachers were

taking food to school to feed the children. In some instances, they

were insisting that those kids who brought lunches should share their

lunches with the other children. A number of the parents of these

children are on income assistance; a number of them are in receipt of

GAIN; a number of the children have parents who have problems with

drugs and alcohol. Twenty-eight of those children have been identified

as being abused, and a number of them have been apprehended by the

ministry since September of last year. Mr. Speaker, that's 25 percent

of those children. Yet what do we find when we look at the budget? We

find that that area of the budget which is earmarked to meet the needs

of children and families is losing $2 million. What kind of parent is

the Ministry of Human Resources? What kind of parent is this government?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

When we look at day cares in Vancouver, we find there are only three

that accept children at the rate paid by the Ministry of Human

Resources — all others have to be supplemented. Yet the subsidy has not

been increased in a number of years. In addition, there is a lack of

evaluation, a lack of ongoing monitoring and a lack of start-up grants

for day care. The only thing that happens is when there is a crisis.

When a parent complains about child abuse or sexual abuse or some form

of abuse in a day care, at that point the ministry intervenes.

We find the same thing happening with foster homes. Again, it was

announced that as of April 1 there is going to be an increase of 5

percent in foster home rates, which means that instead of the foster

home rate being 10 percent below what the United Way says is needed to

care for a child, it's now going to be only 5 percent below that. The

increase is still not going to bring the rate up to what the United Way

indicates is necessary to raise a child. We find that foster parents

are being called upon to subsidize the children placed in their care by

the Ministry of Human Resources.

We also find, as a direct result of the problems which all families

are finding now — as a direct result of various cutbacks and shortages

in services — that children are coming into care and going into foster

homes more damaged than ever before. Yet there is no training for these

foster parents.

[ Page 5415 ]

They are being asked to take care of very sick and damaged kids. In

addition, they are being asked to subsidize the care of those children.

And speaking on behalf of the children, they are also not being

monitored, evaluated and supervised on a continuing scale. That is not

happening.

In cutting back a number of these services, the ministry indicated

that the volunteer sector should take responsibility for them. So the

United Way did a little survey, and it found that in 1984 it raised

$11.6 million in donations from the people of British Columbia. I think

we have to congratulate the people of British Columbia on their

generosity — the United Way raised $11.6 million. But they calculated

that the services cut by the ministry in that same year came to

approximately $22 million, minimum — probably more. They decided that

if they were in fact to do as the ministry suggested and pick up the

slack, they would have to raise more than twice what they raised in

donations in the same year. It's just not possible. They haven't got

the tax base; they haven't got the budget. The volunteer sector cannot

take responsibility for a family- and child-care program; it cannot put

into place a street-worker program; it cannot take responsibility for

funding a decent child abuse program or day-care program. There just

isn't the funding for that.

In addition, this parent — the Ministry of Human Resources — has

started contracting out and privatizing services to children. Mr.

Speaker, we are opposed completely and totally to the delivery of

children's services being privatized for profit. We do not think that

parents should be making a profit off the children in their

jurisdiction and in their care, which is what the ministry is trying to

do when it supports profit-making privatized services.

In other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, in other

areas, particularly in the delivery of health care, where profit-making

privatization has been instituted, it has not been cost-effective, and

the quality of the care has deteriorated dramatically. Now there is a

question as to whether the quality of care which the children are

getting under this ministry can deteriorate much more. But I think it

could, if the ministry insists on privatization for profit. But even

where there is privatization not for profit, the ministry has not put

into place any accountability system of these private resources. There

is no ongoing monitoring or evaluation of these private resources. How

does the minister know what quality of care is being given to the

children in these resources? The ministry has no way of knowing unless

there is a crisis, unless something goes wrong, unless a complaint has

been laid. Then the ministry becomes aware of the situation and at that

point intervenes.

That is not the act of a good parent. That is not the act of a

competent parent, Mr. Speaker. In this budget there is no indication

that this ministry is going to start taking better responsibility for

the children in its care. The children who have the misfortune to be

apprehended by the Ministry of Human Resources are in clear and

imminent danger. There isn't any question about it, because they are

being very badly used.

[11:45]

The Ministry of Human Resources should immediately replace the $2

million which has been removed from the family and children resource

budget. The Ministry of Human Resources should immediately reinstate

the workers for family and child care, because they were a preventive

service that benefited not just the children and the families but the

community as a whole.

There are people in Surrey, Langley, Richmond and Chinatown who are

concerned about the behaviour of the gangs. They should call for an

immediate reinstatement of the family support workers. They should also

call for an immediate reinstatement of the street workers. A lot of

work and research has been done by Queen Mary School in North

Vancouver, by the B.C. Association of Social Workers, by the United

Way, by the RCMP and by the city of Vancouver as to the value of street

workers, if the ministry needs any additional information about that.

But the way to deal with the children on the street, to identify the

children coming on the street, Mr. Speaker, is to have a worker on the

street.

Now for all of British Columbia there are five outreach workers

sitting in their offices, dealing with crises. Each of these workers

has a caseload of 20 kids. In all of British Columbia there are three

group homes, two Rainbow Houses and one other, all in the lower

mainland, 15 beds to deal with adolescents and juveniles who are in

need of special attention and special care. There are something like

200 teenage prostitutes on the street in Vancouver, and for the whole

province we have 15 beds in three group homes, Mr. Speaker, and a

waiting-list as long as your arm. But the way of dealing with that is

by placing workers on the street, using that $2 million which was

sucked out of the budget to return the family support workers, to deal

with preventing crises in the family, to keep these kids from running

away from home or, if that is not possible, to have the street worker

there once they hit the street.

In addition, we really need an after-care program for kids once they

get to be the age of 19. It is a disgrace that 60 percent of those

children are simply abandoned. As soon as a child reaches the age of

19, that child is simply abandoned by the Ministry of Human Resources.

No support services, no network that the child would have if it were in

a family and had relatives and friends, just thrown onto the street —

what kind of parent is that, Mr. Speaker? And immediately, of course,

they return to income assistance, and perhaps in many instances never

manage to get off income assistance because there certainly are no

incentives built in to helping people to get off income assistance.

In addition, we need in this province an independent children's

advocate to take care and speak on behalf of children. The

superintendent of child welfare used to do that job. This government

eliminated that position and said that we did not need a superintendent

of child welfare, that the Deputy Minister of Human Resources could do

that job. Clearly the Deputy Minister of Human Resources cannot do the

job. The situation of children in this province is worse than it has

ever been in the hundred or so years that this province has existed. We

need an independent advocate. Whatever you want to call that person,

clearly that person is needed: an independent ombudsperson.

We need an interministerial children's committee which really cares

about kids and is effective in its work. That is not the case at this

time. There is such a committee, but no one knows if it ever meets. It

certainly hasn't been meeting on a regular basis, and it certainly has

not been caring for the children of the province.

We want not just a re-establishment but an extension of the child

abuse teams. The child abuse line is effective in terms of kids being

able to phone in and indicate that they're in a threatening situation.

But nothing happens after the phone call is received; it's referred to

the region. The overworked social workers admit that it is taking them

longer and

[ Page 5416 ]

longer to actually get out and investigate those complaints.

Certainly, as I said earlier, all of the constituency offices around

the province are receiving reports that abuse complaints are not being

followed up quickly enough. As you may know, for example, that young

woman prostitute who was murdered recently was a ward of the Ministry

of Human Resources.

I cannot state strongly enough what a very bad parent I think the

Ministry of Human Resources is, and how much I oppose the withdrawal of

that $2 million from the budget.

In addition, I think — and I notice my green light is on, so I'm

going to move really quickly here — the ministry, the government, has

to establish and maintain guidelines and ongoing monitoring of those

programs for children and youth which are operated by the private

sector. The level of maintenance, whether it is through income

assistance, the GAIN rates — which have not been increased since 1982 —

or the foster care rates — which are apparently going to be increased

on April 1— has to be brought up to the poverty line. The increase

which has been announced for foster care rates is not good enough. That

5 percent increase is not going to bring the care for a child up to the

poverty line. And the GAIN rate has to be increased. There is something

really cynical about a government which would increase the budget to

cover the number of people going on income assistance, but not increase

the amount of money which those people on income assistance are

receiving.

Finally, the government should establish a follow-up program for

foster children and for other children in care, so that on reaching the

age of 19 there is some kind of safety net, some kind of support

service for them. They should not be just abandoned by the ministry at

that time.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would draw

to your attention that there is only one government member in this

House, that we do not have a quorum. I think the non-attendance of

government members in this Legislature is a scandalous situation. I

challenge the quorum, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, I believe

that I can identify ten members in the House, including the Speaker.

May we now proceed?

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, in my earlier address I mentioned that I would seek leave to table a number of recommendations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe you're out of order just at the moment. Are you talking about tabling, Mr. Member.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That's correct,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're dealing with the question of the quorum at this time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Okay. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I now count a quorum in the House and would ask the proceedings to continue.

The member for Okanagan North on a point of order.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you. As I mentioned a moment ago, I had intended

to seek leave to table a number of recommendations that I had addressed in my

earlier discussion. I would so ask leave at this time.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise to support the budget that has been

placed before this House by the Minister of Finance. I think it's fair

to say that the budget addresses the realities of today. We've had the

difficult years, and I think it's fair to say that those years are now

behind us.

Think for a minute, if you will, that three years ago the word that

we all talked about was "inflation." Do you remember that every

headline talked about inflation and how fast things were going up, how

prices were doubling and tripling, how house prices were reaching the

stratosphere? We don't hear the word "inflation" anymore. It's a thing

of the past.

You can remember that two years ago the word was "recession." Then,

of course, the word was "restraint." Those two words made the headlines

in the news media. Today the word is "renewal, " because the economy is

improving and because of this budget that's been brought in. It is a

program of renewal for the economy of British Columbia.

We've attempted in this budget to seek a way in which government can

assist in that renewal. Granted, the economy is improving. More people

are working today than were working in 1983. Activity is there, albeit

slow. Unemployment is still unacceptably high, but the NDP approach in

trying to address that problem, trying to solve the problem.... I

can accept that it's their philosophy, and I don't deny them that right

of having a different philosophy than I have, but their solution is to

buy up failing businesses. That's what they said during the last

election campaign, and that's what their track record has shown.

The former administration bought up a number of businesses,

including Ocean Falls, with taxpayers' dollars and became a competitor

with the private sector. The former Minister of Lands and Forests from

the previous administration knows full well what I'm talking about when

I say "buying up" in the resource sector.

They got involved in the chicken business with Panco Poultry. They

got involved in the food processing business with Swan Valley Foods,

and sawmills, pulp mills, etc., because it was their philosophy. They

felt if they took the taxpayers' dollars and purchased a business that

was failing, they would keep those jobs. But what they didn't

understand was that in an economy that lives on competition, and

through competition provides a product at a fair price, those who are

inefficient or obsolete or poorly managed fail, and those who are

competitive are economically viable and succeed. The benefactor of that

system is the consumer. But their philosophy says, "no." Basically, if

you extend their philosophy far enough, it's very simple: everybody

works for government and we'll have zero unemployment. That's what

their philosophy would lead you to in the end.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) says: "How do you pay for it?" That's

exactly right, Mr. Minister. How do you pay for it if everybody's

working for government? Because government can only take from the

taxpayer to fill its coffers to pay its employees.

[ Page 5417 ]

Our philosophy is to let the private sector work, to let the

competitive forces of the marketplace take hold, to let the man with

the new product, the new concept, the new idea get out there and

compete. Some will fail and some will succeed. But the consumer will be

the benefactor in that system. We have to look at less regulation as a

government, because more regulation only stifles the private sector and

causes them great difficulty in remaining or becoming competitive.

We've got to stop taxing. Less tax — and I mean less tax before

production. I think the budget addresses it. When you think of what a

company, large or small, pays in taxes, don't just think taxes on

profit. Think of the employer's contribution to the Canada Pension

Plan, to workers' compensation, to unemployment insurance; those are

taxes, Mr. Speaker. When a man puts up his equity, whether the business

is large or small, he has to pay those taxes up front, before he makes

a profit. Water rates, electric rates, pension plans, health plans,

dental plans: all those are taxes. Rightly so; he should provide those

benefits to the employees. But let's not add more taxes.

That's what this budget is really saying: let's give some relief

now; let's help the private sector recover as the economy improves. I

think it's an excellent effort. Let's make them able to earn a profit,

and then we'll tax the profit. There's not one private enterprise

businessman in this province or this country who wouldn't say:

"Alleluia! I agree with that."

Mr. Speaker, the thrust of the budget is also one of controlled

government spending, has been for the last few years and will continue

to be so. The Minister of Finance has said that. But when you look at

the budget — let's say it as it is — there is an increase in the Health

budget, there is an increase in dollars in the Education budget, there

is an increase in dollars in the Human Resources budget, and not one

opposition member can deny that. That's because there is a commitment

there.

[12:00]

But it seems that what we have to do is try and get this message

across, because you sure wouldn't get it by reading the media, in my

opinion — it is always cutbacks. Yet with all those hard things that

we've done and the accusation of cutbacks, the budgets this year are

greater than in previous years. Mr. Speaker, after all that tough

slugging, we have anticipated another $890 million deficit at the end

of the fiscal year 1985-86.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's confidence.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, that's reality: the reality of the fact

that we have an obligation to provide social services in this

province. We accept that we're going further into debt, but at least

we're controlling that debt. That's far more than your party has got a

record for, Mr. Member.

This budget also addresses the incentives to build and to expand.

We've given those incentives to the business sector. We want them in

the business community to create permanent productive jobs. We said:

"Look, you expand your plant, buy new machinery and equipment, bring in

a new business. We're going to give you assistance and support, but

it's a key because we want you to create permanent productive jobs in

this province, not make-work efforts."

Mr. Speaker, we can do this because we started in 1982, because we

identified a problem then. I have to tell you that today, right now in

Ottawa if I'm not mistaken, the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson, is having a conference on the

economy, a $1 million conference, and he's invited leaders from

management, from unions, from the business community and from the

finance community, because he's got a problem. He anticipates a $35

billion deficit federally this year with an accumulated deficit of $200

billion for the government, the people of Canada. He asked them three

questions. I heard it on CBC this morning. He stood up in his opening

remarks and said: "I want to ask you, the businessmen, the union

leaders: how do we address the deficit? How much do we deal with it

this year? How much of a reduction in that deficit can we achieve? How

fast do you want me to reduce and eliminate the deficit?"

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an endorsement of this government's

policies, that meeting this morning is it. The government has called in

the private sector to get advice, instruction if you will, the same as

we did in this province two years ago, the same as the Minister of

Finance did all last year in meeting with the business community, the

same as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) did in

going out meeting with the municipalities. The federal government is

listening to the people, and we're the leaders in this province because

we identified that we had to understand what was happening in the

business community so we could develop policies which would help the

economy recover. Mr. Speaker, that's a pretty good endorsement of this

government's policies and the leadership of this government, even

though the opposition failed to see it.

Deregulation must continue to be addressed; there's no question

about that. We tend to have lawyers draw up legislation, we pass it,

and then we leave it on the books for year after year after year. We

attempted to improve that situation, as you recall, a number of years

ago, and brought in the Ministry of Deregulation. We achieved some

success and some failure too. We had a committee of deregulation, which

I chaired; last year it brought forward a number of recommendations to

my colleagues to ask them to deal with these areas that we identified

as being in systems or in procedures or in regulation or legislation

unneeded, unnecessary and a restrictive measure that impacted on the

private sector. As recently as yesterday I met with JJ Camp, a lawyer

with Ladner Downs and past president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian

Bar Association, and he said to me: "I like what you did in

deregulation. I know you guys are trying to cut out the red tape, but

you've still got a long way to go." I'm hoping that my ministry staff

and I can sit down with representatives of the B.C. bar association to

continue exploring those areas of deregulation, because I think it's

most important to get that red tape reduced.

The education system: we increased the budget. I just told you that

and you can see it in your book, but it's stated that it's not enough.

The people who object — other than those who do it for political

reasons — say: " What we have in the education system must stay. It's

etched in stone. We must have this course; we must have that course.

Because it's there it is right and perfect." That's not true, Mr.

Speaker. If that's the way we approach the problem, it's putting your

head in the sand, because you must always look at your education system

to ensure that what is there is current and up to date. If it's no

longer necessary, delete it and add something new,

They can accept no pay freeze for the teachers of this province, but

they don't recognize that our budgets at the school board and

provincial levels dictate that we must live within the ability to pay.

Normally, the issue that I hear about

[ Page 5418 ]

most of all today is not student education, it's teachers' salaries.

Eighty percent of the school budget goes for teachers' salaries. If

there was a pay freeze for a year.... Never mind going to Mr. Peck

and the compensation stabilization program. If the teachers of this

province said, "We won't accept an increase, " I imagine we wouldn't

have any loss of teachers. There's sufficient money in the budget, more

than there was last year. Eighty percent of it is salaries; ergo we

should be able to keep the same number of teachers if they keep it at

that level for one year. Many other people have done just that in

various other sectors of the economy.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's your system.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, maybe it's our system; then we should

change it. The budget speech allows me free rein to say what I think,

and I would point out that if it's our system, maybe we should change

it.

Let me give you another problem that I want to comment on: school

teachers on school boards. It's wrong. Someone is going to tell me:

"But you can't sit as a school teacher on your own school board."

Granted, you can't do that, but there are many teachers who live in one

school district and sit on school boards in adjacent school districts.

I've got them in my constituency. I believe — and someone can correct

me if I'm wrong — that the president, the vice-president and the past

president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association are either teachers

or former teachers. I've heard that, and if I'm wrong I'll apologize,

but my understanding is that those three positions have been filled by

teachers or former teachers. I'm not against the school teacher, but I

am for the parents and the children.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The solution, in my opinion, is to let those school board members be

representatives of their community in a nonbiased fashion. Let

non-biased people give direction at the school board level. They can

always turn to their teachers and say: "Give us some input. You people

deal with the children all the time." But at least leave the

decision-making process to a person who is truly unbiased.

AN HON. MEMBER: Uninformed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm glad you raised it, Mr. Member. I said

that they can turn to their school teachers and ask for advice. They

can go to their staff and ask for technical input; they can hire

consultants; they can communicate with the Ministry of Education. But

if we don't address the problem and the impact of biased

decision-making at the school board level — unintentionally or

intentionally — we'll continue to deal with the issue of dollars rather

than the education of our children.

One last item, and it came to me this morning as I read the

Province. During the throne speech I raised the matter of equality for

the Indian and the white man. I spoke to an empty House at that time

and I'm not doing much better this time, except that I do have some

young people in the audience, which I appreciate. I stated at that time

that I didn't have the answers to the Indian problem, and I hoped the

negotiators at the federal-provincial level would find the answers.

Today I read an

article entitled: "Indians Win Dollar Battle." Let me

quote: "The B.C. Court of Appeal" — the learned judge, the learned court of appeal — "yesterday ruled

Indians who buy a car or truck on a reserve are exempt from paying

sales tax on it under provisions of the Social Service Tax Act" — a

provincial act. David Mossop, the lawyer, added that the savings to the

Indians and the loss to provincial revenues would be enormous. He went

on to say that the effect of the decision would be that Indians could

set up, say, a gas station on the reserve and not have to pay tax on

the gas. They could charge prices much lower than anywhere else. We're

talking about millions of dollars in years to come. Couple that

decision with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Indians working

on reserves are exempt from paying income tax, and that gives the

natives quite an edge in businesses set up on reserves.

"'No Indian is subject to tax in respect of ownership, possession or

use of the personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve, '

ruled Justice Alan McFarlane. 'If there is any ambiguity in the

legislation.... it should be resolved in favour of the Indian who

claims an exemption."' I have to tell you that the learned lawyer, Mr.

Mossop, stated in his closing paragraph — if he is quoted correctly: "I

think the provincial government should be quite happy with this

decision. They wanted special economic zones .... and now they've got

them." Isn't that marvellous! That is the wrong decision. It is unfair,

it is un-Canadian and that court of appeal judge should be chastised

for what he has done.

There are schools in this province where the Indian children are

taught and for which every man and woman in this room pays taxes. Why

doesn't the Indian pay taxes? There are hospitals in this province

where Indians, when they're injured or sick, get served — and rightly

so. The sales tax, if I recall correctly, is a social services tax that

was put in place to help offset the costs of hospitalization. Now they

are taking the stance — supported by a learned judge — that, no, they

shall not pay it. It's wrong.

We've gone through land claims. We've gone through cutoff lands. In

my constituency the Penticton Indian band, if I recall, got in excess

of $10 million in a land claim settlement, and thousands of acres. I

have no objection to that, but I am concerned that we address the

Indian affairs issue in this country. I have no objection to them

becoming Canadian — nor should anybody. I know that they can retain

their culture and their heritage. But we must find a solution before

it's too late for their kids — for the young Indian boy and girl coming

along in the future. We will be a land divided. In the end there's

going to be a backlash like you've never seen if this trend continues.

The courts and the judges and the lawyers must understand that they're

not just playing with words on paper, they're playing with the future

of this province. We are all part of the same community.

Thomas Berger, a former NDP leader and a former judge, stated:

"They" — the Indians — "wish to achieve a measure of self-determination

and self-government." Mr. Speaker, the issue of self-determination and

self-government is being discussed now at the federal-provincial level.

What is selfgovernment? Somebody tell me what that is. Is it the local

level? Is it the band council? Is it like a municipal council? Or is it

— and stretch your imagination a little farther down the road, when the

politicians and lawyers get involved — an Indian nation within Canada?

Is it their own flag? Is it their own laws? Is it their own taxation

measures? Is it a mandatory seat in this House — mandatory that there

will be an Indian representing his Indian nation in this House? Or will

he sit in here duly elected by the people of his constituency, as did

[ Page 5419 ]

Frank Calder, the former member for Atlin? The recent decision, in

my opinion, would imply that self-government could mean just that.

[12:15]

When you say that sales tax for the province of British Columbia

doesn't apply to sales on Indian reserves, that's wrong. It should be

changed. As we said in the throne speech, we should not try to

rearrange the sands of time. That's not the issue. The issue is that we

should look to the future to see how we can help the Indian people. We

should do that for the sake of the Indian children. We should provide

for equal opportunity. We should provide for equal education of the

Indian child, and we should provide for equal opportunity in the work

place for Indian and white man alike. They're no different, in my

opinion, Mr. Speaker, than any other minority group in this province or

this country. They should, Mr. Speaker, be part of the Canadian mosaic,

and the way that the legal world today is going — with judges such as

the one that made this ruling — they will not become part of the

Canadian mosaic. That is unfair, and in my opinion it's not correct

that we should be going down that road as opposed to trying to bring

them into the Canadian mosaic and making them part of Canada.

Issues such as land claims and cutoff lands, self-determination and

self-government must be set aside. As I said, that Indian community

should surely become part of the Canadian mosaic, no different than any

other minority group. I'll be accused of being uncaring, and I'll be

told by the learned people who deal with these things that I don't

understand the problems. I'll be told that. I'm just a country bumpkin;

I'm just a kid from the interior. But, Mr. Speaker, many Indians will

also tell me that I'm a racist. They'll say: "You're a racist. You're

trying to take our culture and our heritage away from us." I'm not, Mr.

Speaker. I'm speaking out because I'm concerned about the future of

that Indian child, that young person who has to come up and compete in

a modem twentieth century world. I'm concerned about the Indian

community. We must stop this madness of such decisions as the 7 percent

sales tax — the decision that says: "You don't have to pay sales tax."

You have to pay sales tax, I have to pay sales tax, but an Indian

purchasing a product in the province of British Columbia does not have

to pay sales tax. That's wrong, and it will only further divide us.

I hope that my colleagues, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith),

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the

Premier will give leadership at the federal-provincial meetings which

are scheduled and which are going on, I guess, on and off at the

present time. I hope when they meet they'll give that leadership with

the goal of making Canada for all Canadians, with equal opportunity,

equality and accountability for all.

If we can achieve that one goal — finally to resolve the matter of

the Indian problem or question — and do it in a rational way, not in

one of confrontation or conflict at these meetings, but one where the

leaders of both white man and Indian alike can sit down and say: "We've

got to think of the future. We cannot think in the past. We cannot

rearrange the sands of time. We cannot put aside the hurt that was

caused by decisions made by people who came before us.... We

can't resolve those issues any differently than we can resolve the

issue of the Acadian in New Brunswick or the Japanese during the Second

World War, when people were moved from the coast into the interior. We

can't change that, Mr. Speaker, but we can change the future if we

address the problem in a rational manner.

I know the Attorney-General, the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations and the Premier will all accept that responsibility and will

do their utmost, as they have in the past, to try to sit down and reach

a reasoned conclusion — and hopefully one which will be accepted by the

Indian community — so that we can look to the future.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of raising these issues,

both the one with the school board representative and the one on Indian

affairs, during the budget speech. As I've said before, we do have a

fair amount of flexibility. I want to say in closing that my hat is off

to the Minister of Finance, who worked long and hard during the past

year trying to get input from the community, talking to everybody. He

spent a lot of time on the road and set a fine example for the federal

Minister of Finance, who is going through the same thing, although he's

brought everybody to Ottawa and has been accused of spending $1 million

on a conference.

But at least I think we set the example on how to get input prior to

making tax changes or prior to bringing in a budget. I compliment him

for his work, and I appreciate the opportunity to support his budget.

MR. BARNES: I've had better days, Mr. Speaker. I have a bit of a cold.

I must say the member who just took his seat may have misled the

House somewhat. I'm no expert, Mr. Speaker — I think I'm in order. This

is the budget speech, is it not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The term "misled" could be considered unparliamentary. I'm sure the member is aware of that. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: I would say that perhaps his

interpretation of

the fact with respect to Indians' exemption from the sales tax seems to

me somewhat misleading. I think he was making reference to the

situation on reservations, not general purchasing at department stores

and other retail places in the community. There is a difference. He

didn't mention reservations, to my knowledge.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: He did? Okay.

I hope the minister will follow up and will be having consultations

with the various native groups in the province. I hope that he is

sincere, because certainly in making the speech he's just made in the

House, it gives the impression that he has some very strong views. I

agree with him in the respect that something should be done, and this

government should sit down and talk seriously and honestly with the

native people in this province to try to bring the matter to a

satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to take my place in the debate this afternoon

to oppose the budget speech. I don't need to repeat all of the reasons

why, but essentially I am opposed to the budget as being anything other

than another government sham, to try to deceive the public in terms of

its ability to manage its affairs.

Mr. Speaker, before I get started on my remarks, which have to do with the young people....

[ Page 5420 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think

the member should in all decency withdraw the statement "a sham to

deceive the public."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There wouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule. The language is a bit unparliamentary....

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly withdraw. I'm not in a

confrontational mood this afternoon. I will withdraw, because I think

the document speaks for itself. The minister knows the document speaks

for itself.

Let me just make an introduction. Mr. Speaker, I notice that in the

galleries are some 130 young people. They call themselves the Canadian

Girls in Training, CGIT. Since we've been talking about young people,

education and so forth, I would hope that the House will welcome these

people.

I will now proceed, Mr. Speaker. If you will bear with me, I have

the type of glasses that are okay when I am reading, but I can't see

you.

Mr. Speaker, it may be a cliché, but it is nonetheless true: youth are

our future, our most valuable resource. Sadly, this government does not appear

to consider them our most valued resource.

Today's youth face a most difficult future. They are fearful of

their inability to participate in the decision-making process. They are

fearful that they will not have jobs or have little job security and

tend to be poorly paid.

A recent study by the Canadian Mental Health Association revealed

that young people, who are primarily employed in blue-collar sales and

service jobs if they are men, and sales, service and clerical jobs if

they are women, frequently involve irregular and inconvenient shift

work with evening and weekend hours. Many of those young people have

only part-time employment, which is characterized by poor compensation

and few, if any, benefits. One in four youths in B.C. is unemployed.

The rate for native youths, which were referred to by the minister

earlier, is considerably higher.

Picking up on some of the points that were made earlier by the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), she was giving a breakdown on

the systematic dismantling of the support network for young people and

for families and for those people who are coming into the workforce.

The government removed the street worker in Vancouver's east side, and

tells of a 90 percent to 100 percent unemployment among young natives

in that part of the city. These people don't have low expectations;

they don't have any expectations at all.

Young people are fearful of the ever-present danger of a nuclear

holocaust. In the last three months, three Canadian universities have

held student referenda to determine whether or not the students wish

the university to have a supply of cyanide on hand so that in the event

of a nuclear attack they would have the option of suicide. That's a

cynical commentary, but it has, in fact, happened.

It is horrid sometimes for us in the Legislature to really

understand the state of mind that exists among our young people today.

I don't believe that I am being an alarmist when I suggest that young

people, more than any other group, need understanding. They need to

have a means by which they can express themselves, and more

importantly, they would like to see some results. They'd like to feel

that they are capable of initiating action, but the budget has not

addressed these concerns in any serious measure.

The youth of today are fearful. They are uncertain of their

educational future and their opportunities in post-secondary

institutions. The B.C. Federation of Students, Mr. Speaker, reports

that hundreds of young people wish to attend college or university, but

they are unable to afford the tuition. They are unable to obtain

sufficient financing. Is it any wonder, then, that so many young people

feel alienated and resentful of the legacy we prepare to pass on to

them?

[12:30]

Mr. Speaker, what has Social Credit done to aid and assist our next

generation, so that they can enter adulthood secure and confident in

the knowledge that they are well prepared to face the future? The

Social Credit government has attacked the public education system and

its associated support services to such an extent that children in

public schools can no longer be assured they will receive an adequate

education, in spite of the excellent, highly qualified and dedicated

staff, who are unable to give each child the special attention needed

due to staff cuts.

The government has reduced a very important

new Canadians. They no longer have access to the additional assistance

they require and deserve, nor is it available.

The government has reduced the funding to post-secondary

institutions so that class sizes have decreased, courses have been

eliminated and tuition fees have risen dramatically, while at the same

time the changes to the student financial aid system have meant a

higher debt load for those who must borrow to finance their education.

At Capilano College in North Vancouver the crafts programs are being

threatened because the government does not consider the contribution

made by artists and craftspersons as being as worthy as those made by

computer technicians, for instance. The graduates of this craft program

have a reputation of being among the finest in the country. The

graduates from these programs go on to work and display their crafts.

They go on to do fulfilling work as craftspeople in our province.

The whole question of culture and of the arts and of the economic

value of dollars spent in the arts community is unfortunately not very

well known. But there is documented evidence that at least 60 percent

of every dollar that goes into the arts is a working dollar that stays

active in the community, and that every dollar that's spent usually is

involved in far greater returns because of the kinds of subsidies that

individual artists involve themselves in, the kinds of volunteers who

are involved in these projects, the kind of training that's necessary,

and the lonely hours, so to speak, of preparing oneself in order to

make an artistic statement. All of these are dollars that are

unrenumerated, so to speak, by the system.

But the system benefits. Tourism benefits; art collectors benefit —

the public generally has someone guarding and looking after the

heritage of a community. We get a great deal of benefit from the

so-called basketweaving courses that the government feels it can just

slash without consideration of the consequences of doing so.

The government has reduced funding as well to the health services

which support adolescent psychiatric care, forcing the closure of

Vancouver General Hospital's only adolescent psychiatric unit for seven

weeks this summer.

Interjection.

[ Page

5421 ]

MR. BARNES: I hear some of the members across the House

saying: "Read the budget." Are you suggesting, Mr. Minister of

International Trade or whatever you call yourself lately, that the

Vancouver General Hospital is not going to close and has no intention

of closing that psychiatric unit for youth this summer for seven weeks?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Are you saying it's not being used? You see, Mr.

Speaker, he is saying that the centre is not necessary and is not going

to be used in the summer.

What studies have you done to suggest that there will be no crisis

where young people may be slashing their wrists or may be in need of

urgent help? Do you have any idea? Were you listening to the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds talking about the incidence of suicides among young

people — the desperate situations people find themselves in?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's no wonder they're depressed, with an opposition like you.

MR. BARNES: It's not a question of opposition, Mr. Member

It's a question of stating a serious situation that requires

responsibility on the part of this government. I'm not concerned about

opposing; I'm trying to get the government's attention on a serious

situation.

Mr. Speaker, this subject that we're discussing today, youth, is a

subject that the government probably figures to be frivolous and of no

significance. What have we heard about the government's youth programs?

What about the government's job creation programs for young people? We

had the Minister of Labour make a joint announcement with the federal

Minister of Employment that there was going to be $30 million available

for youth work this summer. Some $19.5 million of that was going to be

spent by the federal government; we have yet to hear anything from the

Minister of Labour about the province of British Columbia

participating. We have yet to hear a word, and yet that has been an

announcement as recently as a few weeks ago. How come the government

isn't talking about its initiative with respect to making jobs for

youth? Because it's not making any.

This isn't a question of opposition. These are facts. The Minister

of International Trade is over there saying that we should read the

budget. He's talking about economic zones, all these great innovative

ideas he has, and yet one viable economic zone already exists in the

province, one that should be used as an example of what could happen

with this so-called cooperation and individual initiative that you keep

harping about. That is the Chinatown-Gastown area, and you're putting

up a bloody wall around the place. You're putting a wall around it and

telling people they have to pay to go into one area that is already

viable.

Let me go back to reading my speech. It's not as exciting, and it gives

you a chance not to get involved. But don't get me riled up, because you

know what I'm talking about. You know you're not doing anything for

the people. You don't intend to. You're standing up high and mighty

and telling the people that when things get better, Mr. Speaker.... All

we have is a trickle-down theory of economics on that side of the House. Some

15 percent of the people are unemployed in this province — 15 percent, Mr. Speaker,

and don't you forget it. That's a lot of people out of nearly three

million, and the minister has the gall to stand up and say: "We have increased

social assistance payments. We are committed to social programs." You've

got to increase them if you don't give people jobs. What do you expect?

They're going to be rioting in the streets. This isn't something you

should be lauding; it's something you should be ashamed of. You're not

even bringing them up to standard.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That member over there is admitting that this

government is going to perpetuate mediocrity and a low class of

standard of living for the people of this province. Those rates, which

were never adequate in the first place, haven't been increased for

three years. You know that they've been frozen. But your travel around

the world hasn't been frozen; in fact, you've doubled your travel

expenses. So let's just get the facts straight. You don't have to read

the budget to find that out.

Interjections,

MR. BARNES: Listen, Mr. Minister, I can yell as loud as you

can. It's not all that effective. But if you want to yell, I can yell

with you any day, Mr. Minister — any day, louder. We don't have to

talk, just yell. If you want to listen to what's going on, then just

calm yourself down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. I'll ask

other members of the House not to interrupt the member now taking his

place in debate, and I'll ask the member to address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read this clipping, because this minister is starting to act as though....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Listen to him. Have you heard him stand up in this debate and say anything yet?

AN HON. MEMBER: We all heard him the other day.

MR. BARNES: You can hear him, but you can't understand anything, because he's not coherent.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a great example for the kids.

MR. BARNES: That's right. This is what the young people are

watching here today, the kind of display this government.... I'm

talking about the youth. I'm talking about this government's lack of

support for International Youth Year — no designation. I'll tell you

something, Mr. Speaker, before I read this. I'm going to suggest

something to you, Mr. Minister....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, let's have a yelling match. Let's let it all hang out.

[ Page 5422 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Minister of

International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will come to

order. If any other member wishes to yell while another member is

taking his place in the debate, the Chair can accommodate that: you can

yell all you want outside this chamber.

MR. BARNES: I was just trying to make a peaceful statement,

Mr. Speaker, that was prepared by our hard-working researchers. I did

not want to get riled up; all I was going to do was state it on the

record so that the party's position would be clear with respect to

these problems. But when this man keeps harping, Mr. Speaker, it more

than annoys me; it shows me how difficult it really is for the young

people of this province to try to get anywhere. I came in here

sincerely trying to communicate. I notice the Premier has come in and

he's looking himself.

But I want to say something to you. I'm at the point now where we're

just going to do some talking. Going back a little bit, you will recall

that a few years ago there was a young man by the name of Terry Fox

jogging around at Simon Fraser University. The story is interesting,

because the present member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who came in

after the former Attorney-General, Mr. Williams, was a radio hotliner

for CJOR. He and his girl Friday at the time — Margaret Chew, I believe

was her name — were good enough to allow me to participate in the

campaign to try to get some attention for poor Terry Fox, who was

jogging around and trying to motivate some interest so that he could do

his run across Canada. I'm sure that if that member were here he would

confirm that I'm telling you the exact facts. He himself participated

in those initial promotions. But you know, Fox was well on his way and

halfway back before we finally got this government to recognize a

resolution that was sitting on this order paper for months, trying to

get them involved.

That happens to be a fact. I'm not going to run that down too long.

This government has finally learned to begin to recognize the efforts

of people who are disadvantaged. Mind you, they're doing it

selectively, because many other people are out trying to demonstrate

that they too have been inspired by the efforts of Terry Fox. We stated

in this House that his deed would inspire many people across the

country and in the world. The fellow who followed him — Steve Fonyo —

is another Terry Fox. He is doing much better. The government began to

recognize and has made some contributions and overtures. There was

another fellow who has been inspiring. He's now running across Canada

and will go down to Mexico and come back in town for Expo. I don't know

if the government gave him a sendoff, but that's Al Howie, the running

machine. We all know "Running Machine Al."

Then there was another guy who got involved in doing something. It

was a senior citizen who claimed that he walked, ran or something

across Canada. Do you remember Frank Crawshaw? Or was it Harry

Crawshaw? I believe that was the name. I believe the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) gave him a sendoff and shook his hand out

here in front of the House. That's good too. That's recognizing merit

in individual effort and initiative. The government has really shown

that it recognizes the effort of individuals, because we now have

someone who has had an exemplary past and who has continuously shown

himself to be an inspiration to people all over the world........ I'm

speaking of the young man who is now going around the world on a

25,000-mile tour: Rick Hansen. I want to associate myself, by the way,

with the remarks made by the second member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat), who yesterday stated the details regarding this

trip around the world.

We can all align and we can all grow and we can all come around to

some kind of reality, but this government has gone one step further in

recognizing the feats of this athlete. He has been recognized as the

Man in Motion. But these youths are also in motion. In fact, they are

immobile, trying to get mobile. They're trying to get somewhere. We

recognize the feats of these stars, and we need them; but there are

other people who are inspired as well, and I think this government

should stop and look. The inspiration is working people starting to

care. They're starting to want some hope.

You've got a situation so bad that the academics are beginning to

run away from the province — God rest their souls. I wish they would

stay and fight. Nonetheless, they are running away — because they are

being pushed. They're being interfered with. They're being oppressed by

this government. They're being pushed to the point where they cannot in

good conscience carry on their jobs. We've got a fight on our hands

with this government. The government knows it. We cannot run anymore,

and the youth cannot run anymore. We're going to have to start

fighting. It's going to be a sacrifice, but we're going to have to

fight.

The

article that I was going to read is entitled "Not So

Merry-Go-Round." The date is not too clear, but I know it was only a

few weeks ago. If I could get the attention of the Minister of

International Trade (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who was very interested in

this subject of psychiatric services for youth at Vancouver General

Hospital.... I want to point out to him this recently published

statement with respect to his government's intentions and desire to try

to assist the youth of the province of British Columbia:

"The provincial Ministry of Health approved a 25-bed

unit at Queen Alexandra Hospital for Children, for adolescents with

acute mental illnesses, in mid-1983. The project has been on hold ever

since. Approval on paper, yes; money to make it happen, no.

"If Queen Alexandra fostered any hopes that funding

for the unit might be near, they were dashed by this week's news that

Vancouver General Hospital will close the province's only adolescent

psychiatric unit for seven weeks this summer to save money. 'The

tragedy is that there is