1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3573 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 10). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Introduction and first reading –– 3573

Tabling Documents –– 3573

Oral Questions

Reforestation program. Mr. Mitchell –– 3573

Mr. Nicolson

B.C. Place Stadium VIP facilities. Mr. Howard –– 3573

Transfer of funds to BCR. Mr. Stupich –– 3574

Taxation authority in Bill 2. Mr. Stupich –– 3575

UBC expenditures. Hon. Mr. McGeer replies –– 3575

Security programs division. Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 3575

Budget debate

Ms. Sanford –– 3575

Mr. Campbell –– 3576

Ms. Brown –– 3578

Mr. Pelton –– 3582

Mr. Lea –– 3584

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3587

Mr. Lauk –– 3590

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 3594

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. VEITCH: From that great riding of Burnaby-Willingdon and

from a very fine post-secondary educational institute, the British

Columbia Institute of Technology, we have three very fine people in the

gallery: Antoine Van Dierendonck, Toni Clark and Melanie Mahlman. I

would ask this House to bid them welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have a

personal friend of mine, Mr. Gordon Cox, who is the former inspector of

the Vancouver city police force. I would ask the House to welcome him.

We also have three members who addressed our caucus today from the

Institute of Accredited Public Accountants: Dr. Bert Dartnell, Mr. Fred

McBride, the executive director, and Commander Peter Gardner. I'd ask

the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 10 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. Hewitt tabled the annual report of the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia for the period ended December 31, 1983.

Oral Questions

REFORESTATION PROGRAM

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. This

morning I met with 250 to 300 unemployed youths who had been working

with the federal Canada Works program doing much-needed work in

forestry such as spacing, planting, etc. This program has run out of

funds. When will this government release the $37 million that the

Minister of Forests says is available, and when will they successfully

negotiate the federal-provincial agreement to continue this much-needed

work in the forests and to keep people employed and not on welfare?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and, in his absence,

the acting Minister of Forests, if that is his wish, or the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. McClelland.) I have taken the position before that with respect to

individual portfolios where expenditures are approved within that ministry or

portfolio, the question is more appropriately directed to the minister responsible.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you're going to

send me to the Black Forest in Germany to talk to the Minister of

Forests, but as I am not aware of who the acting Minister of Forests

is, will he please rise, or will the Minister of Finance please

identify this person who can answer the question about the much-needed

work for the people who are unemployed now because of this government's

inaction?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would expect all members

would know the acting ministers for each portfolio in government. I

will take the question as notice for the Minister of Forests.

MR. NICOLSON: Would the Minister of Finance enumerate the acting ministers for the all of the cabinet benches?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, that would be a somewhat lengthy process, but if it's....

MR. NICOLSON: I think it would be pretty short.

MR. SPEAKER: It could be very lengthy, but the Minister of Finance wishes to respond.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if it is the member's wish, I

will provide him with a copy of the list of the various acting

ministers, information which is readily available. The acting Minister

of Forests is present, if the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is

permitted to redirect his question, but I have taken the specific

question as notice for the Minister of Forests.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has a copy of that if it would be of interest to the members.

B.C. PLACE STADIUM VIP FACILITIES

MR. HOWARD: I can certainly agree that there are a number of

bad actors over there, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question

to one of them. No. I withdraw that. I would like to direct a question

to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in his

capacity as the person responsible to this House for B.C. Place Stadium.

Inasmuch as guidelines for the use of the VIP lounge and the

box-seat in an area at B.C. Place stadium were tabled in this House on

August 11, 1983, stating that the facility is available to government

members or B.C. Place directors — and I quote — "when conducting

government or Crown corporation business," is the minister aware of any

specific occasion when this policy has been violated?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the

preamble

he said I had tabled some guidelines. I just answered a question that

was put on the order paper. No, I don't have any occasion to know when

the guidelines, as you have called them — they're actually rules which

we have applied to the box — have been violated. However, I am going to

qualify that by saying that I don't determine what the member's

business may be when the member is attending.

MR. HOWARD: For the minister's edification, the question that

he referred to had within it the reference point guidelines, and he

responded to that question. Inasmuch as the Social Credit Party has a

private club known as the "top

[ Page 3574 ]

20," whose members donate a minimum of $3,500 per

year for certain privileges, including access to the Premier over the

heads of cabinet ministers, is that...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Somebody should go over your head. It would be a long trip.

MR. SPEAKER: And the question is?

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister aware that members of this top 20

club, having paid their money, had use and enjoyment of the VIP lounge

for the B.C. Lions football game on Saturday, October 22, 1983?

[2:15]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps the member could review the purpose

of question period, which is to deal with urgency. I think that what

happened last year during a football season hardly qualifies as

urgency. The same rules apply if a member of the House wishes to take

people to the private box at their.... All I am involved in is the

member requesting a number of seats. I do not question who a member

takes and what the business that they conduct is. Those are not my

guidelines, whether it involves people who are members of the foreign

service, the diplomatic corps or members of either side of the House.

MR. HOWARD: The urgency arose because I have just been

provided with a memorandum and a telephone message wherein one Mr.

Kinsella, working for the Premier, invited the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) to join the "top 20" last

year. Now who is running the show — the "top 20"? They paid their dues;

maybe Alex didn't pay his — I don't know.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't detect a question that could be directed to me, but perhaps I detect a question that may be answered by my colleague.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO BCR

MR. STUPICH: My question is for the Minister of Finance. I've

been trying for a few days to get an apparent discrepancy straightened

out between the budget and BCR's financial statements. A couple of days

ago the minister suggested that I was mixing apples and apples, and I

would like a little more explanation.

MR. REID: He said apples and oranges.

MR. STUPICH: You take it your way, I'll take it my way.

His second answer, Mr. Speaker, was to the effect that he had answered this

previously on the Monday when I wasn't here. If he did, the Blues are deficient

in that they didn't record the answer. I'll try again. The budget speech,

on page 6, quite clearly states: "This debt was incurred to finance construction

costs, mainly on the Dease Lake extension, which cost more than $200 million."

The statements for BCR — the latest ones available — show the Dease Lake extension,

note 5, as $98,020,000." I won't read the whole thing, but it makes

it quite clear this includes all of the costs up to that point in time, including

legal costs and settlements with contractors. There's a discrepancy of at

least $103 million. Mr. Speaker, I again ask: will the minister explain?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I believe that I have already dealt with

that. He has described the issue of being "apples and apples." Apples

and apples are very much the same. The proposition which he advanced

the other day is clearly a question of apples and oranges.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, once again the minister says he has

answered the question. I presume he is referring to the answer he gave

on Monday of this week. If you would let me, Mr. Speaker, I'll read

from Hansard and show quite

clearly that while he did deal with several questions about BCR, he did

not deal specifically with this question about the real discrepancy

between the figures used in the budget speech and the figures used by

B.C. Rail in their financial statements, as signed by the auditors,

Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure there is a

question there. However, quite clearly there is no discrepancy between

that on which the budget was based and those statements which have been

placed before this House. That is my point. When the member has sorted

out with his research staff precisely what he wants to ask, then I will

attempt to answer the question for him. But he's not dealing with the

same dollars. It's that simple, Mr. Member.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it's seek and ye shall

find. I'll keep trying. Do I have to repeat? The budget quite clearly

says the Dease Lake extension cost in excess of $200 million. Let's say

they're Canadian dollars; he says they may be different kinds of

dollars. B.C. Railway's financial statements quite clearly state that

the total cost of the Dease Lake extension is $98,020,000. Now I don't

know what could be clearer. Can the minister tell me what makes up the

difference of in excess of $102 million?

MR. HOWARD: Imaginative bookkeeping.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the interjection "imaginative

bookkeeping" is a remark that you may have heard but a remark that I

think should not have much attention placed on it. I trust that the

member is not suggesting that the figures are inaccurate.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The interjection, little member from Victoria....

Until such time as the member for Nanaimo has understood the discrepancy in his question, I can't assist him with the answer.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll try a different question. Will

the Minister of Finance tell the member for Nanaimo wherein lies the

discrepancy in the question?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There is no discrepancy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I shall render every possible

assistance to my good friend the honourable member for Nanaimo — and

that doesn't mean I'm supporting him for leadership — in reviewing

details with respect to the British Columbia Railway. But I have to

tell the hon. member

[ Page

3575 ]

that he is asking a question that is based on an incorrect premise.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it? Tell us/

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is not my duty to point out

the deficiency in the review of the B.C. Rail finances as conducted by

that opposition and its research staff.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, may I say I take full

responsibility for this question. It's mine; it's not research staff's.

I listened to the minister speak in the budget speech, and I've read

the BCR statements. I say we're getting a better answer out of the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development when he said there

was no discrepancy in the figures that I've used. Yes, these are the

figures. Why doesn't the minister just say he doesn't know the answer?

We'll get back to him again when there's more opportunity. I'll try

another one.

TAXATION AUTHORITY IN BILL 2

The government has tabled legislation in Bill 2 which contemplates

further tax increases not contained in the budget at the discretion of

cabinet. Has the minister decided to table a correct reference, or at

least a legal opinion, on the validity of this form of delegated

authority to tax prior to the debate of this bill in the Legislature?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have seen some

hyperbole with respect to the

interpretation of the authority proposed

in a bill which is now before this Legislature. I want to assure the

House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing in the bill, or

in anything that would be associated with the bill, which would

contravene the supremacy of this House. I will leave the balance of the

answer until we enter into second reading debate of the bill which is

now on the order paper.

MR. STUPICH: Just one more question — a separate question,

Mr. Speaker. Will the minister tell us why there was no reference to

this special tax in the budget?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I may be at fault in that regard. I believed

that in the budget document, which is still being debated, in terms of

the total issue of health care costs in British Columbia, and

federally, for that matter, that I had spelled it out completely, and

then a piece of legislation was introduced on that same day. If there

is a shortcoming in that respect, then it is mine.

UBC EXPENDITURES

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I undertook, on

behalf of a question placed by the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound, to make some indiscreet inquiries of expenditures at the

University of British Columbia. I can now report on the outcome of that

exercise. The Faculty Club members will be very keen to know that the

downstairs premises aren't the only ones to provide subsidized meals in

British Columbia. The university provides to the Faculty Club the

annual sum of $25,000. It is used to cover staff costs and special

services required for particular functions in the social suite of the

upper floor of the club, when official visitors attend the university.

On the tennis bubble. The university entered into a contract with

the Canadian tennis association. It provided for the university to

build the courts and to erect and maintain the bubble. The bubble was

donated by Tennis Canada. The cost of constructing the courts and

erecting the bubble is estimated at $100,000, which will be recovered

through user fees over a three-year period.

It seems to me that these expenditures are quite proper and

certainly within what one might expect at a university of that size. I

would think, however, that the difficulty remains, when organizations

like the Crane Library anticipate being funded by the government twice,

once through the university and once directly from the government. It

does show the embarrassment that can occasionally arise when you have

organizations that anticipate being funded twice by the government. In

a time of restraint, I think any organization should be funded by the

government once and once only.

SECURITY PROGRAMS DIVISION

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I took a Leap Year question as

notice from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who had an

abiding interest in something called the security programs branch of

this ministry, and asked me in question period yesterday why we needed

a securities program branch. With a little wisp of gendarme paranoia

she suggested it might be some special security private police force

that was being funded under that vote. I undertook to bring back to the

House an explanation as to why we need a security programs division.

The security programs division is simply a recast nomenclature for

something that used to be called the firearms and special services

division. So the diligent member has uncovered a change of name. I'm

happy to tell her that this name change came into effect in 1983-84 —

it was a momentous event — as a result of the passage of the Private

Investigators and Security Agencies Act, which broadened the early

Private Investigators Act. This division is responsible for policy

direction to police agencies, who enforce the Private Investigators and

Security Agencies Act. This branch licenses private investigators,

security agencies and employees of security agencies — that is, patrol

firms and so on — people who contract to do airport security and

locksmiths. It also administers firearms policy under the Criminal

Code, including the licensing of firearms businesses and the issue of

firearms acquisition certificates. In addition, it enforces the above

legislation through a continuing program of inspections and licence

suspensions, and it collects licence fees.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MS. SANFORD: I was pleased to have that explanation today

from the Attorney-General with respect to small arms and what that

particular vote in his ministry was all about. The only thing that

worries me is that in the meantime the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) left the chamber I had expected that she would

stay, in order to apologize to this Legislature and to the people of

the province for the misinformation she was distributing throughout the

province between 1972 and 1975, when she talked about this great cache

of arms we had hidden, secret police forces and all that sort of thing.

Now that the Minister of Human Resources knows, as explained to her by

the Attorney-General in her government, Fin sure she will come back

into this Legislature, get upon her feet and apologize to this side of

the House and to the people of the province for misleading them so

badly during that period. She's never done it before.

Interjection.

[2:30]

[ Page 3576 ]

MS. SANFORD: I don't know whether or not she's going to do that. I would hope that as an honourable member of this House she would do that.

One of the programs this government is talking about a lot these

days is the issue of privatization — that's one of their favourite

terms. Between one and two o'clock today I witnessed an example of what

happens under this privatization which sent shivers up my spine. I felt

so disturbed at what I saw that I decided I would bring to the

attention of this House this example of the government's privatization.

Years ago the windows in this particular building were cleaned by

people who belonged to the Ministry of Public Works. That's no longer

the case. Employees for the Ministry of Public Works in those days, who

were members of the B.C. Government Employees Union, did their job

under the auspices of that ministry and were under the jurisdiction of

the Workers' Compensation Board. We had ensured at that time that the

workers who performed jobs such as cleaning the windows in this

building followed the Workers' Compensation Board safety precautions.

Mr. Speaker, I wish those people on the cabinet benches would listen to

this, because I am sure that once they hear what I'm about to tell

them, they will take immediate action.

Between the hours of 1 and 2 today we were in the Birch Room

attending the caucus meeting, and looking out the window I noticed that

a window cleaner was standing at the top of a ladder three floors up

without any safety harness at all. Don't forget, we are now privatizing

a service for government. When he had finished cleaning one window he

moved onto the ledge of the windowsill in order to assist whoever was

below him in moving the ladder over to the next window. No matter how

agile that particular worker is, no matter how confident he is on a

ladder three floors above cement sidewalks....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: This has a lot to do with this budget. It's part of your privatization sc heme

that results in lack of safety, a situation that I don't know how you

people can tolerate. How can you sit there and know that the money you

are administering through the taxes of the province is going to pay

window cleaners who work without any safety harness whatsoever? You

people are outrageous. How can the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), who is responsible for the WCB in this province, sit there

knowing that the Workers' Compensation Board minimum provisions do not

apply when you people are contracting out, privatizing services and

ensuring that the basic provisions that people should be working under

in this province do not apply? Does it matter to you that you're

jeopardizing lives through this procedure? How can you possibly allow

taxpayers' money to be used for those purposes, knowing that that

window cleaner is out there without any protection whatsoever?

We have already approached the various people within the government about this particular situation.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I beg your pardon, I have already contacted the

people within this government about this particular situation, and Mr.

Speaker, they don't care. They do not care or they would have taken

action before now.

MR. MOWAT: Don't do anything positive; just complain.

MS. SANFORD: Why do you think I'm bringing it to your attention today?

Mr. Speaker, we have tried to bring this situation to the attention

of the government and they have not paid any attention. They obviously

are not concerned enough or they would have taken action before now.

This is what happens when you have situations like this — people take

shortcuts. They use it as the most.... They proceed, when they are in a

company that is not under the regulations and the jurisdiction of the

provisions of trade unionism, under a government that does not care and

is trying to cut comers wherever it can, to provide a service of this

type, risking the lives of people in the process. That's what's

happening. That man's life is at risk when he is three floors up above

the cement sidewalk down there. He knows it, Mr. Speaker, and doesn't

want to admit it at this stage, because it's his government. They're

the ones who are cutting comers, and this is the kind of thing that

happens when they cut corners. They're cutting corners all over the

place — or think they're cutting comers. But in the long run most of

the action that they're taking is going to cost us more money.

For instance, they want to privatize the food services in the

prisons. The preliminary figures that we have there indicate that it's

going to cost the taxpayers far more money after privatizing this

service to provide food for prisoners than it does under the present

system. But oh, no, their philosophy is such that it must be

privatized. They're going to privatize the nursing services in the

prisons. What's that going to cost us? They're going to privatize the

services that are provided through group homes for juveniles who have

problems. Privatize the service and set up a little business. See if

you can cut corners here, there and everywhere. What kind of control is

there over the services that are being provided? The government doesn't

care too much — that's obvious by the way in which they behaved with

this small service provided here to wash windows. What kind of services

are we going to get, and how much is it going to cost us?

These people are adhering to a philosophy which is damaging to the

province in terms of the economy, damaging to the people in terms of

services, and in the long run is going to cost us far more money. When

are they going to change their ways? When are they going to understand

the damage that they are creating out there in the province of British

Columbia? I hope it's soon, because the people of the province can't

afford them anymore.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to speak in

favour of the budget. This is the first budget in 31 years, as we've

said before, in which there has been a decrease in government

expenditures in any province in Canada.

I'm pleased there are a lot of people in the gallery up here today

to listen to the debate that's going on in this House on both sides so

they can be the judges of what is really going on within this

parliament. I'm pleased that there are a lot of people here. They can

read the newspapers and they can watch television, but right here is

where they get the firsthand view of what's going on. Here is where

they get the view of the different philosophies of these two parties —

the party on the left and the party on the right. This is where they

hear

[ Page 3577 ]

exactly what the people in the NDP propose. They're opposed to

privatization, they're opposed to this, they're opposed to that.

Whatever it is, they are opposed to it. They're opposed when the

government cuts services, they're opposed when the government raises

taxes, and they're opposed if the government doesn't have enough money

to pay for the services they're demanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Negative Nellies.

MR. CAMPBELL: That is right. They keep on opposing and

opposing. They tell truths, part truths and some even worse than that.

I would like to quote from the Victoria Times-Colonist of

today, where the member for Vancouver East, who stated, about cabinet

ministers travelling firstclass on planes.... I have contacted the

Minister of Finance and one more minister to check out if this in fact

is the case, and it is not the case. The government policy is that no

minister can travel first-class, and if he does travel first-class, the

government will pay the regular fare, and the minister, out of his own

pocket, pays the difference. When I read the paper: "They've got so

much money, they go first-class up there, drinking the cocktails and

the martinis, telling the folks how they cut the budget...."

That's part of the half truths. That's why I'm so pleased to see people

up here today listening to this. When they go back to their

constituencies, Mr. Speaker, they will realize the half-truths that

have been told. They'll have a better understanding and a better grasp

of the budget that was presented by our minister last week, so when

they go back they can tell the people back home — their friends and

their neighbours — what is going on.

This government has been continuously criticized about the restraint

program. As you're well aware, Mr. Speaker, the restraint program

started in February 1982, which is just two years ago. Our Premier was

the first Premier in Canada to recognize.... He went back to try to

sell it to the first ministers' conference and the Prime Minister, and

they said: "No, we don't require that. It's not saleable." But less

than five months later the federal government came in, and they decided

to go for their 6 and 5 — not because they wanted it but because they

realized that as revenues dropped across Canada, there weren't the

funds to keep on funding all the programs that there had been in the

prosperous times.

I look at the paper this morning, and here is Newfoundland....

It took them two years, but they have finally implemented a restraint

program on their public sector and have put a two-year freeze on. They

said if they didn't put this two-year freeze on, they would have to

increase the sales tax from 12 percent to 14 percent. Here we are

paying 7 percent for the best health care in the country, and they're

already paying 12 percent and saying that if they didn't put the

restraint on, they would be paying 14 percent. That shows what this

government has done to try to correct the expenditures of this

province. They have taken measures that may have been unpopular to

start with but were absolutely necessary, measures that they fully

realized would bring about these changes and bring confidence back into

our economy so the business sector could come back in and invest in

this province and could create the jobs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We hear about a consumer recovery. That may be so in Ontario and, to

a degree, in Quebec. Certainly that's absolutely correct in the United

States. The recovery is to a great extent fired by consumer purchases.

In British Columbia 75 percent of the consumer purchases are of goods

manufactured outside our province, so when we have the consumer

purchase of these goods, it's not to make employment for the people of

British Columbia. It creates employment for the people of Japan,

Taiwan, our Asian friends, Europe, the United States, Quebec or Ontario

— wherever the products are manufactured. Our economy is

resource-based, not consumer-manufacturer based. Therefore we have to

have our costs aligned to exports rather than promote the idea that our

economy is going to be enhanced by the consumer spending more on

imported products.

[2:45]

There's one more thing I would like to mention here, and that is

that every day we see one union back to work and two unions still on

strike. I refer to the IWA, which settled for a three-year contract,

and the two unions which have not gone back, the pulp and paper workers

and the other pulp union. I would have thought that the opposition

would have attempted to get these unions back to work so that our

people wouldn't be unemployed, so that there wouldn't be harassment at

their workplace and these people could go back to work. A lot of them

have been laid off for three months, six months or up to a year or

fifteen months, and then they go back to work and sign the three-year

contract. They want to go back to work and produce, and here we have

the next two unions not prepared to accept the same contract as the

first union did. I think this is very unfortunate and very disruptive

to the marketplace.

As the NDP is the party of the unions, I would suggest that their

leader ought to intervene with the union leaders and suggest that this

be changed so that there wouldn't be this secondary picketing so that

they wouldn't be going around with flying pickets trying to close mills

and disrupt the people who do wish to go to work. Surely these people

are entitled to work. These people have been unemployed long enough,

and they're entitled to go back to work. I'm sure that the people

sitting up there in the gallery, if they had been unemployed for six

months or a year and had gone back to work for a few weeks and then

found out that another union, which was not affiliated with them but

was in the same industry, came down to picket them, they would be most

upset, as the people have been in Fort St. James, Mackenzie and many of

those places in the north.

When I think about human rights.... We heard the cry last fall

about how this government was opposed to human rights. Then I read the

newspaper this morning about the man running the SeaBus and the union

saying: "If you don't take your uniform off and break the law, you'll

be fined $100 a day." Those are the types of people who were protesting

out here in September and talking about human rights for the people of

British Columbia. That's the type of justice they wanted to deal out.

That's kangaroo justice.

MR. REID: Kangaroo courts.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right, kangaroo courts.

I look at the bus runs in Vancouver and the transportation system there, and here are these....

MR. REID: Best in North America.

[ Page 3578 ]

MR. CAMPBELL: It is the best system, Mr. Speaker. Are they

going to deny the citizens of Vancouver the right to ride that bus?

They talk about changing uniforms and going to work in other clothes,

that they're not going to change bus routes to try and harass the

people. I would hope that these people, who are being very well paid

today, with a great subsidy coming out of the taxpayers of the

province.... I might add that that subsidy comes out of the taxes

paid by the people of the member for Atlin. They don't have many buses

up there but his people are paying the subsidy. They come out of the

area of Omineca, where this member in front sits, going out to Terrace.

They pay the subsidy, Mr. Speaker, but there ain't no buses running

through there.

The people in Vancouver are fortunate enough to have a great bus

system, subsidized by the whole province. I think they are entitled to

better service and better treatment than they are presently receiving.

Going back to human rights in the unions, Mr. Munro has been told

that he is not supposed to speak anymore; that Mr. Kube will now do the

speaking. This government has never told the people they couldn't at

least talk. They could consult, and they could talk. We never tried to

muzzle the people. But the people who criticized human rights, Mr.

Speaker, are the same people who are saying: "Don't say anything.

Muzzle them. That's going to be our philosophy."

I would like to move on to Okanagan North, which is my riding. This

region has lumber and milling and agriculture. For a few moments I

would like to concentrate on agriculture.

As you are no doubt aware, the income insurance program was

implemented in the early '70s. It was a guaranteed income insurance

program for the farmers, which was a companion bill to the agricultural

land reserve. It compensated farmers who had their land frozen within

the agricultural land reserve, ensuring that they could receive fair

monetary value for their farming endeavours. Over the years this

program was implemented and has grown, and certainly today it would be

very difficult for the farmers in my area to survive without it. But I

believe there are a couple of things that this government is going to

have to look at within this program. One area is that subsidies are

paid on all classes of fruit — extra fancy and fancy, C-grade, juice

apples that go to the juice plant and the peelers which go for apple

sauce; all are entitled to this subsidy. I believe this has been to the

detriment of the quality of fruit grown, because today if the farmer is

paid for 50 tonnes of apples, he is paid the subsidy regardless of the

grade. It is perhaps more feasible and more economically advantageous

to produce 50 tonnes of apples of lesser grades than it is to produce

35 tonnes of a better-grade product that could be sold on the export

market.

I believe this government needs to take a look at that program.

Perhaps the lower-grade fruits need to be removed from the income

insurance program and a greater emphasis put on the quality fruit so

that these can be exported into the Pacific Rim countries and Europe,

where the markets are. One exporter that I spoke to just last week, who

had a market for apples in Asia, talked to a packer in the Okanagan who

had sold out of all the fancies and extras, which are the apples we

normally export to these countries. They still have a few C-grade left

which are not saleable to these countries. I do believe that this

government will need to take a look at this program.

Another area in the valley that concerns me is the program of direct sales

from farm roadside stands, which equals approximately $30 million a year. These

enterprises are being jeopardized by the program of a straight subsidy across

the board. I believe this program could also be enhanced if this subsidy was

only on the better grades, and the rest of the grades were not subject to the

program.

In closing, I would like to say that I support this budget. I

believe it will do for British Columbia what they hope the budget they

are going to bring down in Newfoundland will do three years down the

road. This province is now getting the advantage of what was done here

two years ago.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to talk about the

fact that in this budget the government is decreasing its expenditures,

and specifically I want to talk about one expenditure, one ministry —

the Ministry of the Attorney-General — and one particular service which

is going to have its budget decreased, the legal services society,

which provides legal aid, or which is supposed to be the one means

through which people who cannot afford to hire legal counsel....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: A means. That's right. It's certainly the most

effective and cost-effective means of doing this so that people who

cannot afford to hire legal counsel have access to the justice system.

That is one of the services that the government, in its wisdom, has

seen fit to cut, which the member who just took his seat is bragging

about, saying: "Isn't it wonderful that we have a government which can

decrease its expenditures?" The problem we have is that there isn't the

concern or analysis on that side of the House about the human impact of

these kinds of cost-cutting actions on the part of the government. It's

wonderful to brag about the fact that your expenses are down. All of us

like to do that. I'm always happy when I can cut my expenses too. But

the thing that has to be taken into account is the impact of cutting

these expenses.

What I would like to do during the minutes that I have to speak

against this budget, Mr. Speaker, is to talk a little bit about what

this government is doing to people through this decision to cut the

budget of the legal services society. I wouldn't want to leave the

impression that this is the first budget which has seen fit to do so,

nor that this is the first Attorney-General to do that. But this

certainly is the government which started to cut back on these

services. It actually began in 1982 under the previous

Attorney-General, who is no longer with us — the then Hon. Allan

Williams. It started with him. I must say, although we were all very

upset at the time he introduced his cuts in legal services, we realize

now that what he did was nothing; it was a tea party compared to what

the present Attorney-General is doing to the delivery of legal services

to people who can't afford to hire their own legal counsel.

On April 23, 1982, a flurry of memoranda hit the people who serve

the legal services society and the community legal offices in this

province. The memoranda talked about things like the Family and Child

Service Act. This is the legislation which presumably is supposed to

protect the children of British Columbia who find themselves, through

no fault of their own, wards of the Superintendent of Child Welfare.

What this memorandum said — and it went out to all counsel who are

supposed to defend these children in the courts — is that there would

have to be a cutback not only in the quantity but presumably also in

the quality of services they were offering these children. It said, for

example, that social workers were not permitted to spend more than a

maximum

[ Page

3579 ]

of one and a half hours with each case prior to its going to court.

Regardless of how much time they might need, they were not going to be

paid for more than one and a half hours. Presumably that was the

guideline they were supposed to follow. It also said that not more than

two hours were to be spent in consultation with witnesses who had

anything at all to do with the cases dealing with these children.

Incidentally, I want to remind you that a lot of these kids who were

being taken into custody were the victims of either physical or sexual

abuse, among other things.

Nonetheless, as of April 23, 1982, a memo went out from the

Attorney-General's ministry to all of the counsel who served these

kids, saying that as of then there were going to be these cutbacks, and

stating the hours to be spent — one hour of preparation time for every

four hours spent in court. Now I'm not a lawyer, but people who are

part of the legal system tell me that the preparation time — in most

instances is much more important than the time spent in court and that

the more time you spend in preparation, the less time you have to spend

in court because you do a better job once you get there. Nonetheless,

that was one of the memos which went through on April 23, 1982.

The other memo, Mr. Speaker, which again went through on April 23,

went out to the family advocates. These are the people who are supposed

to be working on behalf of families who find themselves in a crisis

situation and need the services of the courts. They were given the same

kinds of guidelines: not more than a maximum of eight hours was to be

spent with any case, not more than one hour preparation for every four

hours that they were to be in court. Again the cutbacks in terms of

number of hours that social workers or psychologists could spend with

these families.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, it's wonderful that the Attorney-General

before the present Attorney-General before the other Attorney-General

is saying that in fact they could spend as much time as they wanted.

They were to be conscientious and give all of this free time.

[3:00]

HON. MR. GARDOM: People do that in life.

MS. BROWN: Sure people do that in life, but what we are

saying is that the people being asked to do it are the people who serve

children and families. For example, people not being asked to do it are

the people at B.C. Forest Products, who can get away without having to

pay the full tariff in terms of scaling their logs. Your government is

very selective.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: If that is the case, why do we need a memo saying

that after April 30 there are going to be no advocates appointed to

defend children over the age of 12 who appear in the courts of our land

— those who cannot afford to pay for legal counsel themselves and whose

parents cannot afford to hire legal counsel to defend them? That's

what's happening as a result of the kinds of cutbacks that the previous

member was bragging about.

A memo went out again on April 23, 1982 — I don't think there are many poor

people in this province who are ever going to forget that date — that had to

do with the Family Relations Act. It said that people who had to go before the

courts as a direct result of family breakdown were no longer going to be represented

by legal counsel, unless there was proof of physical violence involved; in other

words, in order to have legal counsel representation in court you have to be

sure you get beaten up first. Unless the family has physical violence or unless

there is a threat of imminent physical violence, legal counsel, which normally

is supplied by the government, is no longer going to be in effect.

It also says that there will no longer be legal counsel for

enforcement of maintenance orders — this at the same time that the

Ministry of Human Resources was introducing legislation and a program

saying that now the ministry was going to be handling the enforcement

of maintenance orders, and people in receipt of welfare weren't going

to get it unless they saw to it that those maintenance orders were

being enforced. So you can't get welfare unless you enforce your

maintenance orders, and you can’t get legal counsel to help you enforce

a maintenance order unless you get beaten up first by your spouse. They

brag about the fact they are cutting back in terms of the cost of the

delivery of legal services in this province.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act — another memo went out on April 23. If

we count, I think that we will find something in the nature of five

memos went out on that fateful day affecting the most vulnerable

segment of our community — the people who least can afford to defend

themselves were under direct attack from this government. The Juvenile

Delinquents Act and the Criminal Code of Canada: counsel who normally

represent these young people when they go through the courts....

The memo now said to them that they were not to do that, except in an

instance where there was violence involved or the theft of a motor

vehicle. Our obsession with material things.... If it were a

custody case or some other kind of case — shoplifting or whatever —

there would be no legal counsel. But if it was the theft of a motor

vehicle or if there was violence involved, then legal counsel would

come into effect.

Look at the sum total of all of those memos, Mr. Speaker, which went

out on April 23: the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the family advocates,

the Family Relations Act and the act covering services to children who

are wards of the Superintendent of Child Welfare. I missed one: April

23, the Child Paternity and Support Act. This one again says the same

thing: consultation time of witnesses is not to go beyond two hours,

and preparation time for counsel is not to go beyond one hour for every

four hours in court. So we have the Child Paternity and Support Act,

the Family Relations Act, the Family and Child Service Act, the

Juvenile Delinquents Act and the family advocate service act. All of

these services, which are part of the legal services provided by

government to people who cannot afford their own legal counsel, were

cut on April 23, 1982.

We thought that was the end, but of course we were wrong. The

Attorney-General changed, but the policy toward people in need in this

province certainly didn't change. When the new Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Smith) took over, the cuts continued. We were told by the Legal

Services Society that something like 7,000 people were going to lose

legal aid that year. Legal Services submitted a report which said that

as a direct result of the government's cut in funding to their society,

and as a direct result of these memos, there was going to be somewhere

between 1,000 and 2,000 people who would no longer have access to free

legal representation, due to

[ Page 3580 ]

tighter eligibility rules. There were going to be 2,500 people who

would not be represented in

summary conviction cases, and 2,100 who

would not be represented in divorce action. There were going to be 500

people going into family court without legal counsel, and there were

going to be 500 people going to court on civil matters without any

legal assistance. They estimated that 7,000 people, as a direct result

of the provincial government's severe cutback in funding to the Legal

Services Society, would be going before the courts without legal

counsel. It is not possible, as the judges themselves will say — and as

time goes on I'll quote from some of them — to have the quality of

justice, which we should all accept as our right, when you go before

the courts without legal counsel.

The Legal Aid Society and the Legal Services Society, which are the

instruments through which these legal counsels give their services to

people, were going through trying times in terms of their funding. In

August of 1982, halfway through the budget year, they were told that

their funding was going to be reduced by $625,000. They projected that

for the year 1982-83 they would end up in a deficit position of

something like $2.2 million. So they were forced to introduce these

very stringent eligibility criteria on the people who use their

services. At the same time they were forced to introduce user fees. If

you were a welfare recipient, it would cost $10. Everyone knows that

welfare recipients can barely survive on the welfare rates paid to

them, but if in fact it turns out that they also need to go before the

courts, they were going to have dip into the meagre income they got

from the Ministry of Human Resources to pay $10 to get legal services.

If they were not on welfare, they would have to pay a user fee of $30.

The Legal Services Society was quite concerned about this and tried

to negotiate with the then Attorney-General to do something about

dealing with the deficit. They met in December and explained that even

after their budget cuts and the cuts to their services, they were not

doing a good job and they were not whittling away at the deficit; as a

matter of fact, it was going to rise to something like $3.5 million by

March 1984 unless they got some financial assistance from the

government. The board had a meeting with the previous Attorney-General,

who gave them a commitment to go to Treasury Board to see whether it

would be possible to pick up an extra $2.4 million for them.

I want to explain to you that the Legal Services Society started out

in 1981-82 with $13 million, and I want you to keep that figure in

mind, Mr. Speaker, because by the time we get around to the 1984-85

budget, which we are now debating, we are going to find that legal

services has been allotted $12 million. We are talking about increased

unemployment and increased pressure on the Legal Services Society at

the same time as their budget is going down. When the pressure on them

is increasing, their budget from the government is decreasing, as well

as their budget from everywhere else. The commitment was made in

December to go to Treasury Board to try to pick up another $2.4

million. They got something in the neighbourhood of $800,000, and ended

that year in a deficit situation.

What we heard from the legal services people is that during a

recession, which we were going through at that time, they found that

the demand for legal services increased. There were more poor people

who were eligible for legal aid and these people have more legal

problems which demand assistance. In the first six months, for example,

they found that there was an increase in their caseload in family

matters of 20.2 percent; an increase in civil matters, mostly to do

with debt, of 54 percent; and an increase in criminal matters of 22

percent. They said it was illogical and unfair to impose restraint on

legal aid at this particular time. From any perspective, in terms of

human rights, democratic rights or even fiscal policies, these costs

cannot be justified, they said. We cannot avoid inevitable social and

monetary costs by simply reducing the budget for legal aid. It couldn't

come at a worse time. The great majority of clients will no longer be

assisted with cases before family court, dealing with child maintenance

and all those other things which I mentioned to you earlier. Yet more

and more people were finding themselves in a situation where they

needed that.

In '83 the cutbacks to legal aid were escalated even further than in

1982. The new Attorney-General said that now there had to be a

priority: only those people who were coming into the justice system for

the first time were going to be covered by any sort of assistance from

legal aid. I want to use a quotation. It says: "A person who defends

himself in court has a fool for a client." This newspaper column of

March 29, 1983, goes on to say: "But that appears to be the only option

for adults and children who come to the Victoria Law Centre charged

with

summary convictions under the Criminal Code or under the Juvenile

Delinquents Act, a legal aid spokesperson said on Monday. The Legal

Services Society of B.C. announced last week that effective April 15,

1983, no lawyers will be provided to juveniles, and that effective May

15 to August 15 no cases will be referred to lawyers in private

practice," which is how many of the cases were handled up until that

time. At that time the Legal Services Society gave as their reason that

their deficit of $2.4 million was still in effect because Treasury

Board had turned down the previous Attorney-General when he asked for

that additional $2.4 million to deal with them.

[3:15]

In 1982-83 they talked about the Legal Services Society having had

55,000 requests for assistance. This was at a time when they were

finding that there was not enough money in their budget to deal with

that, and despite the fact that they had introduced stricter income

standards, restricted eligibility and had limited the coverage of

family matters to only the most severe.

"In September 1983 the new Attorney- General, Mr. Smith"

— I'm quoting, Mr. Speaker; that's the only reason I use his name —

"said that the money which the legal services had should be used to defend

those who have not been in the justice system before and who are likely to go

to jail if convicted."

That's the only criterion he thinks they should use.

I have here the annual report of the Legal Services Society for

1981-82. It showed that in those years the largest number of cases they

dealt with had to do with matrimonial matters. They dealt with 4,528

cases to do with matrimonial matters. The annual report for 1982-83

showed that that figure had dropped; instead, the largest number of

cases had to do with criminal matters. It also showed that in 1981-82

matters dealing with debt were number 5 on the list; matters dealing

with debt had moved up to third. Instead of it being as it was in

1981-82 — matrimonial, criminal, landlord and tenants, consumers and

then debt — we found that criminal is now number 1, matrimonial is

number 2, and debt is number 3. We also found that they dealt with 864

social assistance and welfare cases in 1981-82; in 1983-84 they

actually dealt with 1,101 such cases. We find that not just were

caseloads

[ Page

3581 ]

increasing, but different things were becoming priorities. Bear in

mind that at the same time the budget for legal services for 1982-83

was frozen. For 1983-84 it was frozen at the same level that it had

been at for 1981-82. In 1981-82 it was $13 million; in 1982-83 it was

$13 million; in 1983-84 it was $13 million. This was despite the fact

that their caseloads were increasing; that the pressure on them for

their service was escalating; and their debt was increasing. Bear in

mind that the present budget which we are now debating, to which I am

opposed, shows that the money budgeted for legal services is going to

drop to $12 million. It's going down as the caseloads are going up —

from $13,743,125 down to $12 million.

Well, it had to end somewhere, and what happened was that somebody

took legal services to court. Someone by the name of Richard David

Mountain decided that he was denied justice because at age 24, with no

assets and no income of any kind, legal services said that he was not

eligible for free legal counsel when he had to go before the courts. So

he sued the Legal Services Society of British Columbia. The judges

involved were Mr. Justice Nemetz, Mr. Justice Lambert and Mr. Justice

McFarlane, and they ruled against the Legal Services Society. In other

words, they ruled against the government. They decided that with no

assets and no income of any kind this young man, regardless of whether

this was his first or his second offence or whatever, under the Legal

Services Act passed by this House, was eligible for legal counsel. I

think their decision is kind of interesting, so I'd just like to read

into the record a couple of the things they said. It says:

"The Legal Services Society has been forced to reduce

coverage in the criminal law area because of a shortage of funds from

the province and the Law Foundation."

They place the blame squarely where it belongs: not with the Legal

Services Society, but with the province and the Law Foundation.

"The accused, if convicted, will probably be sentenced to a jail term or will lose his means of livelihood.

"The accused has no record, or has a record which is unrelated

to the current charge."

For that reason, therefore, he should be entitled to legal counsel.

"The objects of the Legal Services Society are to

ensure that (

a) services ordinarily provided by a lawyer are afforded

to individuals who would not otherwise receive them because of

financial or other reasons" — that's what the act states, and the court

is repeating it — "(

b) education, advice and information about law are

provided for the people of British Columbia.

"The society shall ensure, for the purposes of

subsection (1)(a), that legal services are available for a qualifying

individual who (

a) is a defendant in criminal proceedings that could

lead to his imprisonment; (

b) may be imprisoned or confined through

civil proceedings....

"The society has authority to determine the priorities

and criteria for the services it or a funded agency provides under this

act.

"The society is given the power to ensure that

services ordinarily provided by a lawyer are afforded to individuals

who would not otherwise receive them.

"In short, if a person's liberty, safety, health or

livelihood are in real jeopardy, the society is required to make legal

services available. It must do so."

In my own words, I am saying there is the element of compulsion there. It's not it "may"; it's that it "must."

"But if liberty, safety, health or livelihood are not in

jeopardy, then the society may allocate its resources as it thinks best."

In the final page of the judgment, the court rules that:

"The possibility that funds may not be provided to the

society to enable it to carry out its statutory duties does not repeal

the statute or revoke the duties."

I think that's the crucial thing in this decision: that the society

cannot use, as a reason for not giving service or not supplying counsel

to someone in need, the fact that it doesn't have the money to do that.

It says quite clearly that it cannot use the argument that funds are

not provided to carry out its statutory duties; that does not repeal

the statute or revoke the duties. In other words. they have to do it.

The Government has to come up with the funding whether they like it or

not.

How did the present Attorney-General respond, Mr. Speaker, to the

court's ruling? He responded by saying that at the first opportunity

legislation would be introduced on the floor of this House which would

amend the Legal Services Act so that this kind of decision would not be

possible in the future. In other words, legislation would be introduced

which would say that the society would not have to carry out its

statutory duties if it didn't have the funds to do that. That's what

the Attorney-General promised in public statements after that decision

came down.

What do we find when we read the budget speech, Mr. Speaker? He is

going to honour that commitment. I haven't got my copy of the budget

right here with me; I guess it has fallen on the floor. But what he

said in the budget speech was that legislation was going to be

introduced which would prevent the Legal Services Society from being

taken to court under those circumstances again. In the meantime,

however, he is picking up the tab so that they can carry on their job

until the end of the fiscal year, which will be March 31, 1984.

I don't know. The Attorney-General is not all bad. I wouldn't like

to leave that impression. In November of last year he announced that he

was going to put into place a task force that was going to travel

around the province. This task force was going to be giving the public

and everyone an opportunity to look at a number of things. It was going

to look at the nature, range and priority of legal services which ought

properly to be provided at public expense. It was also going to be

looking at the appropriate eligibility requirements for recipients of

publicly funded legal services. It also was going to look at the method

of delivery of legal services, as well as the appropriate alternative

for the funding of such services. The task force, as I said, is going

to Nelson, Terrace, Cranbrook, Prince Rupert, Kelowna, Kamloops, Fort

St. John, Prince George and Campbell River as well as to Victoria and

the lower mainland. Wonderful. I think it's a great idea, and I'm

certainly encouraging everyone everywhere to prepare submissions to

present to the task force, because I think that the delivery of public

legal services is crucial to the justice system in this province; I

believe that.

But what do we find? The Attorney-General is not waiting for the

task force to complete its task. He is not waiting for a report to be

tabled in this House, or even to be delivered to him. The

Attorney-General is not even waiting for a rough draft. He has decided

that he's going to amend the Legal

[ Page 3582 ]

Services Act even while the task force is travelling around the

province accepting input from the community at large. This is the great

consultation process that the government talked about, that there was

going to be consultation between the community and the government from

now on and everybody's going to work together and legislation is going

to be introduced in the spirit of cooperation and all this kind of

thing. The task force has been given a mandate. The task force is sent

around the province to talk to the people. But the Attorney-General

proceeds with his fixed agenda, which is to amend the legislation in

such a way that it will diminish the quality of service which the Legal

Services Society is able to offer the people of British Columbia.

The chairperson and the members of the board of the Legal Services

Society have asked the Attorney-General to postpone the amendment to

the legislation until at least the task force has prepared a rough

draft — just some little notes; at least an interim report — and

presented it to him so that he'll have some idea of what people in the

community think the level of public legal service should be. Not only

did the Attorney-General not acquiesce to the request of the board, he

fired the board. One day the board got "Dear John" letters saying,

"Your services are no longer needed, " and he appointed himself a whole

new board, Mr. Speaker, presumably in the hope that they will be more

pliant and not quite as willing to criticize him as the previous board

was.

[3:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

One of the things that we often forget is why we have public legal

services in this province and where they come from, so if time permits

I just want to do a little bit of a historical thing on the birth,

growth and development of legal aid, and certainly the delivery of

public legal services in this province. It actually goes back to 1932;

it's almost as old as I am.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, not quite as old as you are, but almost as

old as I am. In 1932 the first mention of legal aid anywhere in Canada

was made, except that in 1858 there was an advertisement in the

Victoria Gazette that used the word. The first province to debate the

concept of legal aid was Alberta in 1932. This was followed, however,

by experiments in two other provinces, Ontario and Manitoba.

It is unfortunate that my green light is on, Mr. Speaker, because

the history of how legal aid came to British Columbia is really

interesting, and if I get an opportunity I'm certainly going to share

it with this Legislature at some other time.

Since I only have two minutes left I am going to be forced to put

the history aside and instead issue a plea to the Attorney-General, by

way of this budget debate, that he do two things. First of all, he

should look at the way in which Ontario is dealing with the delivery of

public legal services during its period of recession. Ontario, in fact,

is increasing its legal services as it recognizes that the pressure on

its legal services society is increasing. It is increasing its budget

for legal services and increasing its staff. It is also making easier

the eligibility requirements and expanding the areas covered by free

legal services, for fiscal reasons as well as others.

What they've done in Ontario is what we should have done here: that

is, to recognize that it is cheaper to keep people on the streets than

to put them in jail. It makes much more sense to give people good legal

counsel when they go before the courts, because when they don't have

good legal counsel a lot of people end up in our corrections system who

shouldn't be there. The cost to us as a society is therefore increased,

and that becomes a real burden on us. I would like to suggest that the

Attorney-General look at the Ontario system.

The other thing I would like to suggest is that before making any

amendments or introducing his legislation he once again take a look at

the memorandum of agreement dealing with the federal and provincial

funding for the delivery of legal services, as well as for the criteria

or definition of who should be eligible for legal aid, and the quality

of service that should be offered to them. Finally, he should at least

wait until the task force has brought down an interim report and he has

some idea about the quality of service that the people of British

Columbia think should be delivered by a public legal system.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, as I listened with great attention —

as I usually do — to the previous speaker, and cast my eyes about this

wonderful chamber, I couldn't help but think that if someone who had

the task of speaking in here today, or on any one of the last few days,

had to have a large audience to be inspired, there certainly wouldn't

be a great deal of inspiration. Nonetheless, I suppose we have to be

satisfied with the quality as opposed to the quantity, and on that

basis.... Then on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it's possible — and

this gives me cause for concern — that all we're doing is paying

lip-service to a requirement in our standing orders which states that a

budget will be debated for so many days and hours, and that we would be

doing the people's business much better if we got through the thing and

got down to committee of supply. That might be the case as well, but

I'm just not sure of that either. That's up to individuals, I suppose.

I'm not going to take a great deal of this House's time today. I

haven't got a great deal to say; most of the things have been said.

First of all, I would suggest that it probably comes as no surprise to

most everybody here that I stand in support of the budget that we've

been presented with. I'll tell you why I stand in support of that

budget, Mr. Speaker. It's because the people who sent me to this

chamber did so, more than for any other single reason, out of a belief

in the need to restore a measure of responsibility to individuals by

moderating the ambitions and appetites of the state in their daily

lives. This is a clear thrust of this budget, and I welcome it.

Mr. Speaker, we speak of a budget, but I would suggest that this is,

in a sense, a misnomer. The nearly $8.4 billion in question is what I

would call a sum of many mini-budgets. It's budgets from various

ministries and budgets that relate to various programs that are

presented. So it's really a sum of hundreds of decisions. Only a madman

or a fool would be equally pleased or equally displeased with each of

these hundreds of decisions. However, at this stage in our

parliamentary process it is a unit, a single package, so we must

generalize our feelings about it.

It has been suggested that some might support the budget out of a

sense of loyalty. This is said as if loyalty were somehow shirking a

responsibility. I can't support that thinking, Mr. Speaker. I would

only have to direct the attention of our members to those portraits of

the winners of the Victoria Cross which hang in our legislative

corridor to appreciate the

[ Page 3583 ]

much deeper meaning of the word "loyalty" than what, as is suggested

in some quarters, is considered an unfashionable human trait. My

support for the budget is out of loyalty, Mr. Speaker, and I'm proud of

that. But it is also out of a conviction.

Let me reflect for just a moment on two key aspects of the budget

which I think are symbolic and which unfortunately, I think, have been

dismissed by some as being just that — nothing more than symbols. First

of all, the budget has been reduced for the first time in 31 years. I

think that that is important. I think, as a matter of fact, it's unique

in contemporary Canada and possibly even in North America as a whole.

It is not just the accidental result of the compilation of many

mini-budget decisions; I say it is a declaration of direction and, I

would suggest, of principle and philosophy. It is a declaration that

our fate is not out of our hands — that perpetual government growth is

not inevitable, but a matter of conscience and free choice.

Speaking of inevitabilities, recently — just a few days ago, as a

matter of fact — we saw the inevitability of Mr. Mondale evaporate in

the face of a conscious and free choice by the Democrats in the state

of New Hampshire. I'm sure that our colleagues in this House who are

not rated as the favourites in their leadership race will be "taking

Hart"from this result.

The second major point that I'd like to make which has been under

appreciated, I think, is the British Columbia Railway historic debt

repayment. This is a move which is consistent with royal commission

recommendations, with Crown Corporations Committee recommendations and

with our own Auditor-General's recommendations. There is a great deal

of cynicism, I suppose, regarding the response of governments to such

bodies as I have just mentioned. I believe that the opposition should

be joining me in congratulating the Minister of Finance, and in

praising the government for showing the responsibility to act on these

recommendations even when it is not especially politically convenient

to do so.

MR. LEA: But very popular.

MR. PELTON: Could be.

But, Mr. Speaker, speaking of political convenience, or

inconvenience, whatever, I don't like the 8 percent surtax on

provincial income tax to support the medical plan. I don't really think

that anybody in this House likes this surtax. I don't think the

Minister of Finance, perhaps in particular, likes the idea of the

surtax. But the critics can't have it both ways. They cannot say, "Get

rid of it, " unless they have a better alternative for what is required

to make up the deficiency of Ottawa as against the historic commitment

that they have made to cost-sharing in the health care field. What do

these people propose instead? Higher user fees? Lower wages for nurses

and orderlies in hospitals? Smaller health care budgets? Cuts in

services? Or just more debt and higher interest rates? I think we have

to have answers to those questions before we can criticize.

Mr. Speaker, when I had the privilege of standing before this House and responding

to the Speech from the Throne, which is the one time, really, I suppose, when

we do get the opportunity to speak about our riding and the particular problems

we have in our riding, I mentioned — not at great length, but just in passing

and so that it would be recorded in the Journals of this House — the fact that

my riding of Dewdney was about to become involved in a real problem which related

to the sale of Pacific Coach Lines.

This has been mentioned in this House over the last couple of days.

As a matter of fact, it was mentioned this morning by the member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford), and it was either yesterday or the day before

that, in his inimitable style, mentioned at some length by the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). He's a very eloquent gentleman,

and I always listen carefully to what he has to say. He spoke about

government involvement in transportation systems in Canada, North

America and throughout the world, and suggested, as I recall — and I'm

not quoting from Hansard , so I put this in my own words — that it

certainly wasn't unique that governments should be involved in some

kind of subsidization in transportation; anything but. I say he was

absolutely right. You find me a large city or state or other

jurisdiction around the world where transportation, which is a public

service, isn't subsidized to some degree. I just don't think you'll

find one.

As a matter of fact, within this budget — and I support this: I'll

perhaps be speaking a little more about it as we go along.... I've

spoken about the B.C. Railway debt being repaid, and I do support that;

I think that's probably just a heck of an idea. But this is, in a

sense, a subsidy, and when we talk about the railway and about other

things as well, we talk about infrastructure, which is a word I know

that most members are well aware of and appreciate the meaning of. We

talk about the support that's required to accommodate our natural

resource production, manufacturing, and so on and so forth, and that is

correct. I don't question that transportation is an integral part of an

infrastructure system to support the British Columbia economy. But I

don't think that the transportation infrastructure relates only to the

movement of products. I think it relates to the movement of people as

well, and that's why I bring up this point of subsidy not really being

all that bad when it comes to moving people.

[3:45]

The second member for Vancouver Centre also mentioned tile fact that

the bids came in and parts of the system have been sold. The parts that

have been disposed of are those parts which were attractive to the

bidders, because obviously — if you're going into the free enterprise

thing — they offered the opportunity for some of the megadollars. In

the riding of Dewdney, on the north side of the Fraser River — and I

think this might apply to some degree on the south side as well —

nobody bid. There was no bid that came in, and the reason there was no

bid was that the one major operator in that area couldn't bring himself

to put in a bid to buy a bus service which was going to cost him money.

I think that's readily understandable to everybody. I don't think

anybody in this chamber would be prepared to do that.

But this matter of the bus service into Dewdney affects literally

hundreds of people. It really does. There are a lot of people involved.

I've been working very closely with the minister responsible for

transit to try to resolve the problem, and I think we're making

progress, but I feel compelled to mention it in this House today on

behalf of the several hundred people who rely on that interurban

transit system to get to and from work on a daily basis. One of the

people who contacted me, a lady who supports a family, has been using

this bus service for many years to get back and forth to her job, and

if that bus service is taken away, she just hasn't got the wherewithal

to go out and buy an automobile, and she really doesn't know what she's

going to do.

[ Page 3584 ]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious problem. It's one of those

situations where I know everyone is going to do their best, but it's

one of those situations where it's possible — and I pray that this

doesn't happen — where the best will not be good enough. Something has

to be done to ensure that some method of transit is available to the

people on the north side of the Fraser River to get them into Vancouver

to work.

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to this House that the people of British

Columbia have heard enough about unemployment? They're up to here in

unemployment.

MRS. WALLACE: They sure are!

MR. PELTON: Despite what we hear from our friends opposite, I

think the people want to hear about employment, not unemployment, and

about how it will be generated. Those initiatives in export

development, in Expo 86, youth jobs, free ports and so on, are

positives words addressing employment. Let those members opposite

continue to speak of unemployment, if they must, but I am going to join

the Minister of Finance in talking about employment.

When I started out, I mentioned that I wasn't going to speak at any

length today. On many occasions I have thought that Parkinson's law is

quite often applied when speaking in this chamber: that is, that

speeches are often expanded to fill the time made available for them. I

don't think we should ever confuse how long we speak with how much we

say. Perhaps the timely reform of the rules of our House will move us

in this direction.

Mr. Speaker, there are no perfect people. Even if there were, I

would defy them to draft a budget which would please everyone in this

province; it is inherently impossible. This budget is an important

contribution to returning to a more balanced and realistic position of

government in our society and, as such, encourages private initiative

to create real, sustainable, permanent jobs in our economy — the

necessary base for both our future prosperity and the financial

wherewithal to be effectively compassionate. For that reason I would

ask all members to sustain this budget.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to listen to the

hon. member for Dewdney, because whether you agree with him on every

point or not is hardly the point. He always speaks well. He says what

he means and means what he says. That's always a pleasure in this House.

During this budget speech and the throne speech is a time when

individual members in the House are given a great deal of latitude to

talk about how they see the problems in the province: in a general way

during the throne speech, and in the budget speech also very much in a

general way, but more tied into the economic problems that we see, or

the economic problems that we don't see and should talk about. When

speaking to the amendment yesterday, I spoke about the lack of

direction in the budget. It's a direction that would take us into the

new economic order that I see we must start travelling toward, or we

will start to decline.

Today I would like to touch on a number of subjects — one of them brought to

mind in listening to and observing the member for Dewdney speak. I think what

we have to do in this House is to start thinking about parliamentary reform.

I know it's almost akin to being a heretic to talk about any departure from

the British parliamentary system, but after 12 years of watching in the House

and following votes of individual members, I find that almost never will a back-bencher

on that side of the House ever vote differently than the government they represent,

and on this side of the House almost never does an individual member stand up

and vote against the rest of the caucus. Either we're very much alike, on

both sides of the House, or we have no minds of our own. Mr. Speaker, we are

really sent here to use our own minds and to vote with our conscience as we

see it. If our conscience does not allow us to vote with the party we represent

on a particular issue, it is our obligation to vote with our conscience. How

often, Mr. Speaker, do you see that?

So when we're talking about parliamentary reform, I think we should

keep in mind that we may not be a perfect democratic model. It's a

model that has served us until now, and served us rather well, but I do

have a concern personally as a member of this House about the lack

of.... To me, a perfect democratic system, or one that is as near

perfect as you can get, is where there is a distinction between the

administration, the legislature and the judiciary. After 12 years in

this House I do get concerned in a general way about the lack of

distinction between the Legislature and the administration, which are

only the members of government. I'm not suggesting we throw it out. I

am suggesting that as members of this Legislature we have a far bigger

duty than we have to our own particular party. That duty is to

democracy itself. As legislators, I think we must all share that

concern. I think we should share it even more at this particular time

than during normal times.

If I sense the population correctly, I sense fear and a feeling of

anxiety about the future, and insecurity. Whenever there is a

population who feel fear and are anxious about the future, there is a

danger of simple demagoguery taking over that population, and you start

slipping down the road away from democracy and towards a kind of

government that maybe none of us would want. I caution you, unless we

in this Legislature and in every legislature, not just in Canada but

throughout the western world, start to take notice of that fear and

insecurity in our people, then we could get what Machiavelli called a

very dangerous situation. He said that there have been three forms of

somewhat acceptable government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy,

each with its inherent evil built in. Tyranny to monarchy, oligarchy to

aristocracy; and the built-in danger to democracy is the licentiousness

of the majority.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I'll give it over and over, because I believe it's a

speech that we should well remember these days, Mr. Member and Mr.

Minister. When you have the minority in a population who do not pay any

mind whatsoever to the majority, you have a very dangerous situation.

And that brings us to this budget. It's a budget that only pleases

those who are working, at the expense of those who are not. To speak

only about employment — and leave out the unemployed — could very well

be appealing to the licentiousness of the majority. It is not the

object of a democracy to only have democracy on the social side.

Democracy must all so be an economic democracy, or there's no point at

all.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We are in trouble in our economy. We all agree on that. But if we

don't share during our time of adversity, then we are flirting with the

very democratic system that we all want to

[ Page 3585 ]

share. We are flirting with taking it away from ourselves. Democracy

only works when the minority has as big a say as the majority — and

only then. For the majority to say "We're all right, Jack, " and "It's

all right for me to make $90,000 a year," while others are making

$9,000, is not economic democracy. Democracy can only be whole when you

have democracy socially and economically. It has to be a whole to work.

To appeal to those who have at the expense of those who have not is not

only wrong, it is undemocratic. For instance, as individuals in our

society we are protected. If we are weak, we don't allow a bully to

come into the room and beat us up. There's a law against it. On the

social side we say the weak should be protected from the strong if that

strong is a bully. Shouldn't the weak in the economy be protected from

the strong bully economically? Wouldn't that be making democracy

complete?

[4:00]

For this government, in their budget, to say "We'd like to do

something about those people who are suffering in our economy, but at

the moment it's not economic to do it," they are flirting with danger.

If you do not look after the minorities in a democracy, whether

socially or economically, you have no democracy at all. You can't take

away democracy in the name of economy. The government would have us

believe that we are here in society to serve the economy. We are not.

We are here to design an economy that serves the people. That's what

we're here for, pure and simple. The government would have us believe

that the economy is something separate from people, that it is some

sort of abstraction which has its own rules. I remember when the

bishops made their statement on the economy. Federal government leaders

said the church had no business talking about the economy. The church

has every right to talk about the economy. Every citizen, no matter

what they do, has a right to talk about the economy. It is here to

serve us, or should be.

The problems we are facing are great, and no matter how you slice

it, this budget does not address those problems. When we have a need

for a more highly skilled, highly trained and more technical workforce

to take us into the future, to put $470 million into a sinking fund to

pay off debt on the BCR is not the best way to spend the money. The

Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, is wrong. To invest in the future is

the correct way to go, not to invest in the past at this point. If the

BCR debt was going to break us or put us into trouble, then by all

means address the problem. There is no indication — and the government

hasn't given us any reason to suggest — that it is true. But we have

every indication that unless we invest heavily in capital, human

capital and technology, our economy will not survive. It will not grow;

wealth will not be created. Everyone in this House would like to

redistribute wealth, but first of all, Mr. Speaker, you have to make

it. This budget does not apply itself to the creation of wealth. This

budget is nothing more than "let's hold the line." The government would

have us believe that by holding the line, somehow this would bring

economic recovery.

Name one thing in the budget that is aimed at bringing around economic recovery. I have looked at it. I can't find one.

MR. PARKS: You don't understand export-oriented economy then.

MR. LEA: I think, Mr. Member, you understand it only too

well, and if you are going to have a healthy economy, one of the things

that you must always look at is import replacement — not just export,

because an economy that relies solely on export over time will decline.

What you must do in an economy is take a look at it to see what kind of

export you are bringing in and look for export replacements, because

that creates wealth and trade and commerce within your own economy.

MR. PARKS: We're too small for that.

MR. LEA: I'm glad to hear, finally, the government members

admit that. You do think too small. We are a completely open economy in

this province. Almost everything we produce we export. Everything we

consume we import. That's what makes us so vulnerable in a downturned

world economy. If we are going to make sure that we don't always face

that vulnerability, then we must look for export, yes. But we must

also look for import replacement, and that is taking a look at the

things we import to see whether we can make them here for ourselves,

whether we are small or whether we are large or whether we are medium.

We will always remain small if we only concern ourselves with exports.

In this budget there is not one indication the government has any

concern about the future. What is seems to say is this: "If we hold the

line on government spending, everything will be all right." Is there

any other thing that you can derive from the budget? Isn't that what it

really says? If government holds the line in spending, everything will

be all right. It's not right. It's not true. It is absolutely not true.

Yesterday I talked about a sawmill in Port Alberni — a new one

replacing an old one. It has the same output as the old one but with

half of the workforce, because of modern technology being applied. But,

Mr. Speaker, has this government paid any attention to the kind of

technology that is being applied? If you take a close look at the mill

in Alberni you will find out that technology only does one thing. It

does away with jobs, but it doesn't do a dammed thing for better

utilization of the wood that goes through the mill.

I see the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) looking up. Do I catch a

hint of agreement there? Yes, I think so, because I think that's true.

If you take a close look at the new technology applied in the Port

Alberni sawmill, you will find that the new technology was designed to

do only one thing: do away with workers, to make it more productive to

compete in the world market. But the new technology does not utilize

that wood to any greater degree than the old mill did. We have one big

problem in forestry: the original first growth is the most valuable

wood we're ever going to have. The second growth won't be as valuable.

We have to make sure that we get every bit of utilization out of that

first growth that we possibly can. That means that when the private

sector is putting in new technology, government must insist that that

new technology is the kind that will better utilize the wood in the

sawmills. We have to make sure that we better utilize the wood in the

forests, and not do as the government is allowing on the Queen

Charlotte Islands on tree licence No. 24, where per hectare there are

700 cunits of total wood and they're allowing companies to go in there

and cream 300 off the top and leave 400 on the ground to rot or to be

burned. That is a waste of first growth. It is a waste of first growth

to allow that high cellulose content, high fibre content wood to go

through pulp mills when it's good sawlogs. It is improper to put it

through mills that do not utilize that wood to the highest

[ Page 3586 ]

possible technological standard. We are cutting off our noses to spite the future if we continue to do that.

This budget and this government are in a quagmire of mediocrity.

They do not understand that the economy is changing rapidly and that we

must change rapidly to keep up with that rapidly changing economy or be

left behind. We cannot just be an exporter of goods; we must go for

import replacement; we must try to close our economy from a completely

open economy. We must try to do more things for ourselves. We must try

to produce more things for ourselves, both in goods and services, and

we must try to become self-sufficient as much as possible. Nothing in

this budget indicates that we're heading in that direction.

As I mentioned yesterday, if it wasn't bad enough that the budget

doesn't apply itself to the future, equally bad is the fact that it

doesn't apply itself to the present and the problems that our citizens

are having as we go through this economic revolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that if the administration were

not elected members of this House but something else — like, say, the

state of Washington, or in the republican system — and that budget were

sent to a legislature independent of that administration, this budget

would not pass. Every person in this House could be exactly the same

individuals, but this budget wouldn't pass; I'd be willing to bet on

it. I'd be willing to bet that if this budget came from an

administration outside this chamber, every cabinet minister in this

House would vote against it, not with it, because it does not meet the

needs of our citizens. And if this Legislature had to stand up and face

our people and say they voted for this budget, and they were not tied

in with the administration, they would be voted out of office. This

entire Legislature would stand united against a budget that doesn't

help our people in their time of trouble or deal with the future in any

recognizable or effective way.

Mr. Speaker, we as legislators, if we vote for this budget, should

be ashamed of ourselves. If we didn't belong to the Social Credit and

the New Democratic parties in this House, this budget wouldn't pass. I

know that there are members on the other side of the House who don't

agree with it. They'll vote for it because it's party politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a good budget.

MR. LEA: It is a lousy budget. How can any member of this House say

that the budget is good when it doesn't address the problems of our people?

It doesn't address the problems that we're going to have in the future

in any way. Why is it good? Because it holds the line? Is that why it's

good? Mr. Speaker, this budget does not address the problems of our people,

either the problems they are having now or the problems we're going to have

in the future and that are recognizable. Why would any legislator vote for a

budget like that unless party politics were part of it? They wouldn't. Why

would any member vote to put $470 million into the sinking fund of the BCR when

our education system is a very important ticket we should be spending money

on if we want to have an economic future? Why would any member vote for $470

million going to the sinking fund of the BCR when we're cutting people under

25 off of social assistance and telling them to go to Dawson Creek to get a

job? Why would any legislator vote for that, unless they were tied into a political

party and it was politically opportune? The member for Dewdney implied — and

I'm not going to say he said it — that it was sort of courageous of the

minister to bring in this budget at this time. It is not courageous. What the

minister is doing, in my opinion, is saying to those people who are better off:

"This budget won't hurt you." It's part of the tacit agreement

to make sure that a small minority in our society take it all on their shoulders.

MR. REID: The Auditor-General recommended it.

MR. LEA: Oh, well, fine. If that's true, then let's

go.... The Auditor-General does not recommend budgets to this

House. Don't be so silly! It's absolutely silly.

If we were to have backbench legislators on the government side and

on this side of the House who voted with conscience, as I began this

speech, this budget would not pass.

[4:15]

MR. PARKS: You'd take wishy-washy....

MR. LEA: Mr. Boot deserves at least one shot. I'm always

impressed with the novice, with the person who comes in with all the

answers, with these lawyers from the suburbs who come into the House

with all the answers, aren't you? All of a sudden he's the head

parliamentarian. He kicks the Leader of the Opposition out, and then

sells the boot at a public auction. Yes, there's a man I should listen

to. There's a man of integrity. There's a man who brings intelligence

and sensitivity into the House. I wonder if he's going to be a

one-termer, because we've seen them come and go. I'll make a prophesy

right now: that member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is going to be a

one-termer in this House, and we'll never see him again after the next

election. You know what? I wouldn't care what party he ran for. We

won't see him after the next election.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if we can avoid the heckling, then the member who's now speaking might return to the budget.

MR. LEA: I'd just like to conclude by saying that this

government is taking the most cynical point of view that a government

can take. It knows better than to bring in the budget it has, and yet

has brought it in anyway. To imply that the minister is courageous

while pandering to the greed of people.... That's not courageous;

it's corrupt. How can we back that? To say to those who have, "We're

not going to ask you to share with your neighbours during times of

trouble," is corrupt. It's not democratic. To say to those people who

have, "We're going to say to you that you can have what you already

have, but we're going to make those who have less suffer even more,"

isn't brave. It's democratically corrupt. When I hear people who are

taking

part in the democratic process say that sharing is not part of

democracy, then I have to wonder.

MR. REID: Who said that? That sounds like a quote. Who would say something like that?

MR. LEA: The budget says that. The document says that. When

the document says that, and people vote for that document, they are

saying that.

I notice that the member for Dewdney did speak up on one issue. That was one that affected his riding. So he should. But

[ Page 3587 ]

what about my riding? What about the riding of the member for

Vancouver Centre? What about the riding of the member for Little

Mountain? Shouldn't we, as British Columbia legislators, be as

concerned for each other's ridings as we are for our own? Is that not

our duty? To ask for a special favour for Dewdney out of the budget,

which hurts 49 other tidings, is not the way to go, in my opinion. Just

because people are hurting in the member for Dewdney's riding is no

reason that everybody else in the province should be hurting also. The

point is that if you're going to share, you share what you have and you

share it equally. You don't share it on a political basis; you share it

on a need basis. That's democracy, Mr. Speaker. This budget is not

democratic, because it does not take into account the principle of

protecting the weak in times of trouble. As we do on the social side in

democracy we should do on the economic side, and this budget does not

do it at all.

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

take my place in this budget debate. I do say that this rather historic

week in Canada is an interesting time to address a budget. Leap year

only comes once every four years, and in this particular leap year we

had the notice of the Prime Minister's resignation from public office.

I won't add to any of the responses across the country; I thought our

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) did a good

job in that regard yesterday on behalf of this House, and I would

certainly associate myself with those remarks.

But I also believe that as we discuss the budget today we should

understand that we are living in a time when all Canadians are having

difficulties across this nation. Indeed, we have see a recession take

its toll in every area in the world. British Columbia certainly has not

been able to withstand the buffeting of that world recession. I would

say that my ministry has probably felt the effects of that recession as

much as, if not more than, most.

I think today I would like to put the record straight on a couple of

things. First of all, I was keenly disappointed that earlier in this

debate — it was on the amendment debate pertaining to the

budget.... I'm very glad that the member who is now coming into the

House is here to hear my remarks in that regard. I was really keenly

disappointed, in terms of the whole position of child abuse in this

province, and the war on child abuse, that the member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly) took some recent news story and seemed to intimate that

it was because of cuts in services that some blame be placed on

ministry staff, if not the ministry in total, or the minister

responsible, and I really want to set that record straight. I think all

of us in this House have a responsibility to clearly state, with or

without the protection of the House.... I think anything we say

inside this House should be able to be said outside the House, and I

would like to say that in regard to the child abuse program.

First of all, let me put the record very clearly. It is interesting

that in these last few weeks we've had an attack on the Ministry of

Human Resources for interfering in one case — it has been given a lot

of publicity, yet that story has not been fully explained in the press

— and taking children from one foster family. There was a lot of

criticism of my staff over that, a lot of open-line talk and a lot of

discussion in the press. Within the same month we had a very tragic

case — and I'm not going to refer to names, although the member for

Burnaby North did. The publicity brought a fair amount of comment

regarding the death of a child and an allegation of child abuse, parent

neglect, many things.

I want the members of the House to truly understand what I'm trying

to get at when I bring this to the House. Our responsibility in the

Ministry of Human Resources is to protect children. It is the court

that decides whether or not that child should be taken away from the

family and placed in another home for their own protection. We do not

make that decision. This House debated

an act which took the place of

the Protection of Children Act, which we have debated on the floor in

the last two or three years. It gives all the checks and balances so

that we in the ministry do not have that capability of keeping children

out of their own home, but it does give us the capability of removing a

child for a few hours for his own protection.

I really want to make that clear, because in the two cases that I

mentioned I want you to know that there are two opposing views in the

province, let alone in this Legislature. On the one hand the provincial

government or the ministry gets quite a bit of criticism because we are

removing a child from a home. On the other hand our ministry gets all

the criticism in the world because we didn't remove a child from the

home. I just want to make it clear where our ministry stands in that

regard. It is very easy to say in retrospect what should or could have

been done. I want you to know that in this past year, at the time of

the one case to which the member for Burnaby North referred, there were

two whole weeks when the Ministry of Human Resources was monitoring no

case anywhere, and that was when there was a province-wide BCGEU

strike. We could well have been accused of not monitoring a case and of

not being on the job. I didn't hear anybody in the opposition or in the

province say at that time: "Where are all the social workers now, who

should be looking after and monitoring all those youngsters who are at

risk in the province of British Columbia?" There weren't any, and I

just want everyone here to realize that it's a very, very difficult

line that the Ministry of Human Resources walks, because if anything

had happened in those two weeks, I wonder where the blame would have

been passed to in that case.

In the case that the member for Burnaby North referred to in the

previous discussion, to this day we do not have the coroner's report,

and therefore I cannot comment on it. I will comment on it when I have

the coroner's report.

I do hope that members on each side of this House will understand

that out there in the community are a group of people who are dedicated

to keeping children in their own homes until it is proven that a child

must be removed for his or her own protection. But we are not there 24

hours of every day. Above and beyond everything else, I hope this House

will have the sense of security that in this province we have led the

nation in the fight against child abuse. We have absolutely led the

nation, if not North America. The provinces of Alberta and Ontario have

copied our Helpline for Children. Across this nation we are looked to

as having the very best program for training our staff in child abuse.

With the awareness that we have and with the tools at our disposal,

with the intelligence of our people and the level of education in this

province, I just can't believe that we still have to have a war against

child abuse or that there should be child abuse in the province of

British Columbia; but there is.

[4:30]

Interjection.

[ Page 3588 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The very kind of comment that the member

has just made leads me to bring the subject up on the floor of this

House in the budget debate today. This member is trying, again, the

same tactics that were used by the member for Burnaby North. I'm trying

to respond to it in the clearest and in the fairest way I can. But when

you take a tragedy and try to put it on cuts in government I'm going to

tell you that that's a very cheap political shot which is not deserving

of a member of this Legislature. That anyone in public life in this

province or any social worker is responsible for the death of a child

through abuse and child neglect is something that I won't accept from

either of those two members on that side of the House or any member in

this House. My staff do a very good job; they do the best job in the

country. For the opposition to try to bring the elimination of 12

people — the child abuse team, some of which are secretarial help — in

the city of Vancouver and try to parlay that into the fact that we are

now cutting out the war against child abuse in this province.... We

have over 900 social workers who work daily, not 12, Mr. Speaker.

The child abuse team did not give direct services, but the

opposition tries to sell the fact across this province that because of

downsizing of government that team is no longer there. All of a sudden

everything is gone. The war against child abuse and the moneys for the

war against child abuse are gone. That is just not correct. I repeat

again: I think that is a cheap political shot, and it is using the

tragedies that happen. It's not your fault; it's not our fault. It's

because of the times in which we live, and it is using it for a

political purpose. I don't think it is really something that any member

of this House should do. I want you to understand that, because I want

you to know that we could well have in the province of British Columbia

— as a matter of fact, I really do believe we have — the very best

child abuse program in North America. I would like these members of the

Legislature to go out and educate people even more, because that is

what is needed, not that kind of political one-upmanship. Surely we

don't have to use child abuse as a political tool.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'm going to also respond to something that is in the budget,

because I believe it is very important to this House. We've talked on

the floor of this House before about children, wives and in a few cases

husbands who are left and do not have the support of their spouse.

Sometimes they are forced onto welfare because of desertion, family

breakup, marital difficulties or marriage breakdown. Embodied in this

budget is the program for the enforcement of maintenance orders. After

a very long time, I am pleased that we are definitely going to have —

this year, in this budget — a program for the enforcement of

maintenance orders in this province, which will be the kind of

enforcement that will give a sense of security to families. It will

take the harassment out of the whole enforcement-of-maintenance

problem. As you know, people are breaking up their marriages and

leaving families and wives to try to sustain themselves on income

assistance. And yes, the taxpayer picks up the bill. This program will

make those who have left their families responsible rather than the

taxpayer.

MR. LAUK: How?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member had been here on another

occasion when I suggested that we were going to have a better program

of followup, that we were going to have a better program of getting

court and enforcing orders, then he would know what I am talking about.

I'm really happy to know that we are going to have the funds to do

it this year, Mr. Speaker. Many will say that part of it will be

because we're going to save money on welfare. Let me tell you that we

may save money. We may not pay welfare to some families if those who

were to pay or could take the responsibility pay. I don't think that's

the important part. We're talking budget, and I suppose we should be

talking about saving money as well as spending it. I don't think the

saving of money in that case is the important part. I think the

important

part is the whole harassment, the whole argument over a

dollar bill: "You are late in sending the cheque," or "Your father

didn't send the cheque," or "You can't go to the ball-game" or "We're

going to have to have beans tonight because your dad didn't send the

cheque." I think all that harassment, vindictiveness and venom will be

taken out. For couples in this province who have decided to make the

break in their marriage, at last we will not have all their problems,

vengeance and vindictiveness visited upon the children. Thank goodness,

in the months and years to come, we will be cleaning up that act in the

province of British Columbia. I think that's the important part.

I want to speak a bit about transition houses. I think it's

important. Again, I notice a tremendous amount of publicity over one of

the 22 transition houses. This is a place where battered wives can go

with their families and have some kind of security and serenity away

from the abusing spouse. It's not a pleasant subject to talk about, but

it's very much with us in our society. It's not a very happy thing to

bring before the House. But, again, there are people in this House who

would take that particular subject and say that because we are not any

longer directly hiring the staff in a transition house — in the one

that is staff-oriented, the one we have had in the city of

Vancouver.... We are going out of that business. We are going to

make the city of Vancouver service like all the rest — like the ones in

Prince Rupert, Prince George and Chilliwack, on Vancouver Island, all

over the province. Only the city of Vancouver was unique. From reading

the newspapers and all the letters to the editor, you would think that

we're not having any transition houses at all, that even the one in

Vancouver is going to be wiped out entirely. That is not so. May I say

clearly that the service will remain. There will be a transition house

or even transition houses in the city of Vancouver. They will be like

all the transition houses: a place of serenity and security, with

counselling for those people who come to them for help — the battered

wives and their children. They will be there in the city of Vancouver,

just like they are all over the province of British Columbia.

It's interesting that we never hear that there were only a handful

of those transition homes four years ago — something like eight. There

are now 22, in four years' time. That's not a bad record. I know there

will be more because of the encouragement this government gives to

societies and organizations that wish to start one in their own

community. I hope there will be more. I know there will be more. Let it

not be said that we're taking the transitions houses out of the city of

Vancouver. We decided to go out of the business of us providing the

service. It will be provided in the community, and the Ministry of

Human Resources will finance it, like we do all the others. I think

that's an important point.

[ Page 3589 ]

About the point of the good service being done by transition houses

and by the different volunteer groups and others within the province,

it's interesting that in all the talk about cuts in services....

What a tremendous lift it has been and what a good exercise it has

been, as the Minister of Human Resources, to receive letters from

people saying what a good service we have had. There really is

something to be said for us having to clean up our house in terms of

what kind of services our taxpayers can afford. You see, it really

makes people think about what they have enjoyed for a very long time.

As a matter of fact, the other day I was surprised. I had never heard

anything good about the child-care workers in the school system. We

didn't have letters come in saying that it was the best system across

the country. We'd never heard that before. I never received from a

teacher, a parent or members of the opposition.... I have to say

that members from our own side of the House didn't get up in this House

and laud us for that kind of service.

Mr. Speaker, do you know that we are continuing that service in the

secondary schools? But the 15, which were an anomaly within the whole

school system in the province of British Columbia, are now going to

have to be found with local financing. There wasn't any other service

like that anywhere else in the province. We are simply not going to be

able to carry it on. It's a very good service. It's one of the few that

are being cut out, and I'm sorry they are. It would have been nice this

year to have expanded it right through the province in every school; it

would have been great. But the taxpayers can't afford that. They can't

afford a new service like that in the province of British Columbia. If

we're going to provide the necessities that we have to for the growing

income assistance rolls, all the other services that we need and the

core services of this ministry, we have to lose that program. The

letter I received from the school board lauding that program was so

glowing that I really think they'll find the money. I really do think

they'll find the money, because they really feel it is a service that

they really can't live without. So I'm rather confident that that will

happen, and I hope it will, because that's what's happening in other

schools across the province, and they're doing it at the local level.

Let me also mention a couple of other things perhaps a little

misunderstood about the Ministry of Human Resources. I think that we

have services across this province which are second to none in the

nation. But in terms of isolating two or three items which we've had to

take out — and I speak of the child abuse team of 12 people, the

post-partum counselling services, which was a very small group....

That was about eight people. It only took place in the city of

Vancouver. That service can be provided in the private sector, and will

be. If someone needs post-partum counselling in Campbell River, they

can't go to Vancouver for it. Some of these things which were at

another time a very good thing to have, perhaps in the city of

Vancouver and perhaps in another city, if they couldn't be

province-wide and if they were just a few services here and

there.... I think we can live without some of those and let the

private sector and the volunteers pick it up, because what is important

to the ministry is that we retain the core services that we have built

our reputation on and which we continue to do each and every day.

I want you to know that we have success stories each and every day

in this province. Those are the things that never get the headlines in

the paper. When we are dealing with perhaps each and every family in

this province in one way or another — be it a senior citizen, someone

on income assistance, somebody who needs counselling, somebody who

needs a service for Pharmacare, somebody who needs service in any one

of our areas such as the job action program or our individual

opportunity plan — the success stories that we have are truly

remarkable. They don't make headlines. They go each and every day. We

have a ministry that's out there on the front line helping people each

and every day and, I think, doing a terrific job.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker, if I may just end my remarks in terms of where we are

going in the Ministry of Human Resources, I may say this to you. I

think that those of us in this House who have to deal at a community

level and a constituency level from day to day can be very proud of the

services offered. Let's start to be positive about those things,

because you see, as long as we are negative and isolate those small

things.... I say small, because in the great picture, in the huge

picture of the service of Ministry of Human Resources, the over $1.2

billion expenditure, the over 5,000 staff, serving probably every

family in this province, I can tell you that the positives far outweigh

the picky little and sometimes politically motivated criticisms which I

don't really think the ministry or the people of B. C.... We

can't help them if we concentrate on those kinds of things.

Before I sit down let me just give a reference in the budget speech

to another area of my responsibility. I want to, because I feel

sometimes when we discuss things that have to be done in servicing

people who are in need, we forget those things which really create the

dollars that make it possible. I'm speaking about things like job

creation; I'm thinking of those things that this government decided to

do before the world recession was truly on this nation. We made some

decisions a few years ago, and I can tell you that had anybody in this

room been clairvoyant they would have said: "Wow, isn't that an

exciting economic plan to meet the early 1980s?" I'm speaking of such

things as planning for Expo 86, planning for a stadium, building a

rapid transit system for the whole lower mainland, promoting a trade

and convention centre, Lonsdale Quay, the redevelopment of New

Westminster and that remarkable program out in New Westminster that

we've been responsible for, northeast coal and Duke Point. I can tell

you that had those things not been planned in the few years past, we

wouldn't have the money to spend on the Ministry of Human Resources

today. We wouldn't be discussing a budget today, because we wouldn't

have those people working on the stadium, wearing hardhats and building

a stadium under-budget and on time. We wouldn't have the people working

on the rapid transit system. The other day I was out on Kingsway in

Burnaby where we opened a demonstration program, and let me tell you

what that public spending is doing. I really would recommend the member

to go and take a look at that demonstration project out there, and I'd

love you to see the transit system. You recall the transit system; it's

the one that.... There was a member who used to sit in this House

as he NDP Minister of Municipal Affairs. and last May he said he would

cancel the whole rapid transit system. That's the NDP stance.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Your candidate said that as clear as could be, and I heard him on the radio, so I know. That's a matter of record, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3590 ]

Just a week ago I was out in Burnaby as we opened the demonstration

project, and there was someone there from the municipality — as a

matter of fact, the mayor of Burnaby. He tells me that on the drawing

board now — and I hope the members will listen to this — in Metrotown

Station in Burnaby, there is over $1 billion worth of new construction

— private sector activity — because of our rapid transit. Just one

station. That's what it all means. We wouldn't be standing here with

that kind of expenditure if we did not have that kind of pre-planning.

So may I just say this: I give to our Minister of Finance, who has

presented this budget to us, and to the Premier of this province, the

best credit in the world for looking ahead. During these times of

difficulties, recession and hard times for the people of British

Columbia, the planning that we have done has not only resulted in a

better price for such things as ALRT — rapid transit, the spirit of

B.C. — and for the stadium but it has been giving us a much better,

clearer and more purposeful reason for building in these times, which

is to create jobs and to create the dollars we will use in the year to

come to help those people in need — in the Ministry of Human Resources

for social services, in Education and in Health. All three of those

ministries take the greater part of the budget we're debating today.

So may I say that I support this budget with the greatest of

enthusiasm, and I hope that all members of this House will. I'm sure

they'll see the light, on the opposition side of the House, and will

join us, because I have faith that they will stand with us to keep this

province going, to provide the services and to look ahead so that we

can do great things for the people we serve.

MR. LAUK: Well, I want to thank Aimee Semple McPherson for the fine speech.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: For you I would have worn white.

MR. LAUK: I don't think you can find a $2,500 dress in white

these days, can you? The minister did mention that she was offended by

some of the remarks by one or more hon. members on this side of the

House with respect to a matter directly concerning her ministry. I am

informed that the m