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)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3455 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Mowat –– 3455

Mr. Barnes –– 3457

Mr. Campbell –– 3461

Mr. Macdonald –– 3463

Mr. Parks –– 3465

Ms. Brown –– 3467

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 3471

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1984

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased this morning

to introduce a couple from my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Feenstra.

Mr. Feenstra has just retired from a very successful agribusiness. He

is very active in local affairs, including the private school system,

was my campaign manager in the last two elections, and is president of

the Fraser Valley Social Credit constituency association. Would the

House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Feenstra.

MR. CAMPBELL: In our gallery today we have Mr. and Mrs. Chess

Scott from Nanaimo, and also my daughter Susan from the Okanagan. I'd

ask you to give them a welcome.

Mr. Speaker tabled the report of the Legislative Library for 1983.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. MOWAT: I am speaking, of course, about rejecting the

amendment, and I'm speaking in support of the budget that has just been

brought down.

MR. BARRETT: Time's up.

MR. MOWAT: You've only got 90 days left; I've got four years left.

MR. BARRETT: Would you be my parole officer?

MR. MOWAT: I'd love to be your parole officer. We could make up for some old times.

I strongly support.... The deficit for 1983 was only $1.3 billion,

and the deficit for 1984, as we all know, is going to be $670 million.

It should be noted — and noted loudly and clearly — that this is the

first reduction in a provincial budget in British Columbia in 31 years,

and the first in 20 years in Canada. I think it's a trend that has to

happen.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I challenge the opposition to get their heads out of the mud and start working

with this government on the restraint problem. The other day I heard the hon.

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) blame our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

for the restraint problem — the whole world's restraint problem. I think

it's time they got with it and worked with us, worked with the government

to get programs going. This budget that we have brought in is a very proper

budget, but it is not at the expense of the essential services that the citizens

of this province need. We note with a great deal of pleasure that the Ministry

of Health is going to be increased by $51 million in this budget, to $2.593

billion. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is to be congratulated, and

I would ask the opposition why they don't come forward and support his recommendation

for a federal-provincial ministry conference on health care problems in Canada.

Have the opposition gotten on their feet and spoken about the $364 million underfunding

by the federal government in the area of health? The opposition haven't

said; they haven't supported the Minister of Health in his requests for

these kinds of money.

There has been a claim that people are being denied hospital care,

that they are being turned away. I'd like to talk about one small

example. In 1981 a visitor to Canada was injured in a fall, resulting

in spinal cord injury. He was taken to the acute spinal cord injury

unit at Shaughnessy Hospital, where unfortunately he ran up a bill of

$62,000. He was then transferred to the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation

Centre, one of the greatest facilities in Canada, where he

unfortunately ran up a bill of $82,000. He is now in a Lions'

paraplegic lodge in Vancouver, where he has been for a year and a half,

resulting in a bill of $50,000. Unfortunately he has run up $200,000 in

medical bills, not talking about the support services provided. This is

from the Ministry of Health. Close to $200,000 has been spent for this

person. He has no way of paying this back; there is no insurance. So

never let it be said in this province or in this House that people are

denied or turned away from health services.

Last night the member from New Westminster, while speaking in a

hilarious manner for some reason, spoke about mainstreaming. Let me

tell you what is taking place in this province and this Ministry of

Health about mainstreaming.

At the Pearson Hospital for the physically disabled, sometimes

referred to as an extended-care unit, it should be noted that the

average age of the people is 42 years, not like we have at Queen's Park

or the UBC extended care, where the average age is 83 years. In Pearson

Hospital we have a new type of disabled person called a high-lesion

respiratory quadriplegic. These are people who have been injured at the

cervical level in their spines and their breathing is knocked out;

their diaphragms no longer function because of paralysis. We have six

of those who will soon be leaving Pearson Hospital to move into their

own accommodation at the Creekview Co-op on False Creek. The average

per diem rate for these persons in Pearson Hospital is $300; the six of

them are running a figure close to $2,000 per day. That's not talking

about all the equipment, capital costs, buildings and maintenance.

They'll be moving to their own environment, a six-bedroom co-op

apartment on False Creek with all the support services plugged in. It

will cost approximately $45 to $50 per diem. I'm not talking about the

quality of life that we will give to these people.

That's the physically disabled. In the area of the mentally retarded

we are working in mainstreaming. What has happened in the past five

years at Woodlands and what is happening now at Tranquille, where we're

taking mentally disabled people and placing them into the community,

should have the highest regard by the opposition. But we hear nothing

of that.

In regard to the standards for our disabled persons, let me say what

the former recipients of HPIA — handicapped persons' income assistance

— now known as GAIN, are getting in British Columbia. A single person

receives $548; a couple $1,100. In the province of Ontario, which we

like to compare ourselves to, a single person gets $439, not the $548

he gets in British Columbia. A couple gets $704, not the $1,100. In

Manitoba it's $475 for a single and $773 for a

[ Page 3456 ]

couple. So let it not be said that we're not looking after our people.

[10:15]

There are great opportunities. We can do more, and we're going to do

more. As the recovery program puts more dollars into our treasury,

we'll continue to look after our people.

We talk about the new health tax for the citizens. It should be

noted that in Canada — second only to Alberta — we're the second lowest

for provincial income tax.

Yesterday the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) spoke about

unemployment. He didn't speak about what is happening in our province

with our money. The money that the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is spending will create employment; the

diking program will create employment. The ALRT is creating a great

number of jobs, and it will continue to do that for years to come. He

didn't talk about the success of B.C. Place Stadium and what has

happened there. Last weekend the Home Show was in B.C. Place Stadium.

On Saturday they had 21,000 people there and 19,000 people on Sunday.

That was great job creation, and it is continuing to create jobs. B.C.

Place is going to create jobs, as is Expo. There was not one mention of

these positive programs.

Did the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) get up and say

how great it was that Cowichan and Chemainus are going to have a

sawmill built? No. How much money is going to be invested? Twenty-one

million dollars. How many jobs? One hundred and fifty. But not one word

about that new mill. All there has been is knock, knock, knock.

The member for North Island talked about the youth program. Our

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is bringing in a youth program

in the neighbourhood of $10 million. The federal government is bringing

in a youth program called Environment 2000 for $34 million. Did he make

any suggestions how we could access this program, or how we could work

together with their friends — the friends that they're in bed with in

the labour movement — or how we could talk to the unions?

Last year I spoke of a small program –– 50,000 man-hours for the

youth in the city of Vancouver. They were offered $5.25 an hour, but

would CUPE go along with this program? They were not going to take away

jobs. They said: "We cannot hire them unless you pay them the minimum

of $10.19 an hour, which is the wage of a paper-picker in our parks.

The federal government have $34 million in their Environment 2000

program that we can access. I would ask if the first member for

Vancouver Centre is going to support a program to get these people to

work. He knows only too well what we need in the city of Vancouver for

our youth. Let's get a joint committee going that will investigate with

their people in labour to bring down a program that will help the youth.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are their people in labour?

MR. MOWAT: Their people are certainly in labour.

We have jobs that are being taken away. We have Mr. Watson, who, I

hope, will soon become a very endangered if not an extinct species in

British Columbia. He talks about tourism and getting the travel agents

in Washington....

He claims with a great deal of pride to have a hundred travel agents

discouraging people from coming to British Columbia — picketing the Princess Marguerite . That man does not know what he's doing to tourism and to the jobs needed by so many in British Columbia.

I come from the city of Vancouver and I'm very proud to be a citizen

of that city. But I must say I hang my head with a bit of shame and

disgrace at what has taken place in the last week in the city of

Vancouver. I look to the mayor, chief magistrate and head of the police

commission, Mayor Harcourt, who is responsible for law and order in

that city. What did our great mayor do? Not only did he lead, but he

also allowed a vote to take place in city council.... The vote was 7-4

that they would ask that another member be allowed to speak when Mr.

Kissinger, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, came to address the citizens of

Vancouver who wanted to pay to hear him. I must say there were members

of that council — four in number — who stood up to be counted. For the

record, Mr. Speaker, Aldermen Bellamy, Kennedy, Puil and Yee spoke to

say that freedom of speech will be part of the city of Vancouver. But

let it also be noted for the record that Aldermen Rankin, Yorke,

Eriksen, Davies and, for some unfortunate reason, Ford and Brown, again

led by Harcourt, voted against freedom of speech in the city of

Vancouver.

Last year the opposition were up frequently speaking about freedom

of speech. Why weren't they on their feet saying that the people of

Vancouver should have freedom of speech? It was a shame to see and read

about what happened when Mr. Kissinger visited the hotel. The

Lieutenant-Governor and his wife were in jeopardy; people jumped and

spat on their car. This shouldn't happen in the city of Vancouver.

Everyone should have equal opportunity to speak and express their

views. What is going to happen in 1986 if these people, and

particularly that mayor and those people who voted against freedom of

speech, are still members of the city council when Expo 86 comes to

Vancouver? Do we want these people greeting and turning away the

citizens from around the world who will be visiting? What is going to

happen when Pope John Paul II comes to our great city and province? Is

the mayor of Vancouver going to lead the council in saying: "We want an

atheist to get up and and have equal time"? I certainly hope not. Let's

hope there is a change in that civic government.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk a bit about human rights. I have a

very fond background in human rights. As you know, I was a human rights

commissioner. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Labour, who is

responsible for human rights, has appointed an advisory board. I think

it should be noted how the advisory board has been made up. The

advisory board consists of five persons: Barry Sullivan, former

regional Crown counsel; Jane Evans, vice-president of the National

Action Committee on the Status of Women; Eric Powell, a native Indian

community worker; lawyer Lynn Smith; and James Edgett, former Deputy

Minister of Labour. They are to advise the minister. As this government

has said, we will consult on human rights. We're not hearing anything

from the opposition on this.

I would also like to touch on the recent issue of the ombudsman —

the mistake the ombdusman made and has admitted to making. He was man

enough to apologize. I look to the first and second members for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett and Mr. Macdonald), one of whom is the

Leader of the Opposition, to be men enough to get up and apologize. I

don't see them doing this in this House. As we said earlier, the Leader

of the Opposition has 90 days to go. I hope he will go out as a

gentleman with some class.

[ Page

3457 ]

The words we exchange back and forth across the floor are going to do little

to help the B.C. recovery. I would hope that the members across will join us

in letting this province attain the greatness of its destiny.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the budget.

MR. BARNES: I rise to support the amendment, which

essentially points out that the government has paid very little

attention to the needs of those people in the province who are barely

subsisting, who are out of work. Although 85 percent of the people are

working and enjoying the good life, these people are being forgotten. I

think we should address this in a sober sense. I can appreciate the

second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain's (Mr. Mowat'

s) comments

about the insensitivity of us on this side of the House with respect to

the rights of citizens. He commented on human rights specifically in

terms of people's fundamental freedoms.

The budget is depressing. It is a sobering budget for those of us

who are serious — those of us who would like to see cooperation instead

of confrontation. I'm not inclined to attack the government this

morning. In fact, I feel that the time has come in the province of

British Columbia for us to stop and consider the cost to the taxpayers

of that approach in dealing with their affairs. Obviously we're all

very good at confrontational tactics. We're good at name-calling, and

we're good at showing the other person's faults and weaknesses. But,

Mr. Speaker, from time to time, under the very best of circumstances

and with the very best of intentions and good will and sincerity, we

will be in error — we will make mistakes. I don't think that anyone in

this House can excuse himself from that very broad description of the

human condition. That is one of the problems we all face.

While I want to criticize the budget for what it lacks, I would like

to at least start on a positive note and say that the government is

perhaps ill-advised. Perhaps it is uninformed on some subjects, or

perhaps it has convinced itself by whatever means that what it is doing

is in the best interest of the citizens of the province of British

Columbia. That, I think, is the tenor in which we should all approach

our duty in this Legislature. If we were to take that view, it would be

far better for people in the province of British Columbia. It would

afford a far better chance of their representations being fulfilled

when they come with delegations and attempt to make an impression on

the government with respect to certain policy directions it is taking.

So what are the faults of the budget? Obviously, most of them have been mentioned

through the media. The budget is scaling down slightly; nonetheless, it has

scaled down in suggesting that it will scale down even more over a target of

a few years in terms of deficit spending, at a time when in this province the

cost of living continues to rise and large numbers of people are unemployed

— by that I mean that, as opposed to being without a job, they are not being

paid for their efforts. It is hard to inspire enthusiasm when you recognize

the economic problems we have and suggest that people will be doing the province

a service if they will spend their spare time while they're unemployed in

volunteering, to try to help the province get back on its feet. It just doesn't

seem to be a fair and equitable attitude to take when you consider the government's

priorities. I'll just mention one, and then get on to something else. I

cannot understand, in good conscience, how the government could seriously expect

to mobilize enthusiasm and trust in the government by suggesting that it is

going to tax people, on top of the social service tax they now pay, an additional

amount in order to pay off the debt of a Crown corporation. Four hundred and

seventy million dollars will be used to pay off a deficit, which in effect is

another form of taxation of the people.

[10:30]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'm not saying this to inflame anyone, Mr. Second

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), but I think you

should put things into perspective.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has suggested

that the welfare rolls in the past two years have more than doubled,

from something like 58,000 to 113,000; yet at the same time the

minister has reduced her budget from something like $738 million to

$703 million. If the numbers of people requiring social assistance have

doubled in the past two years and the rates have been reduced, what are

the priorities of a government that would do that? Single persons were

receiving $375 per month last year; this year they're going to be

receiving $325, and the cost of living is going up. They're going to be

sustained at that position much longer — eight months before they

qualify to get back to where they were two years ago. It just seems as

though the government is intimidating those people mercilessly and with

all respect — it seems to me, unconscionably as well. Maybe the

government feels this is doing these people a favour because it has

also suggested that they must recognize that times are tough and they

must pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and find their own way.

I don't know if we can make much sense out of that, and perhaps there's

not much more we can say about it, because it is a philosophy that

doesn't seem to relate to the realities and needs of the people of the

province. I think that it's a tragic time, indeed, for us all. It is as

though May 5, 1983, was the beginning of doomsday in this province. For

some reason the government seems to be inspired by the suffering and

grief it's causing; it seems to give it encouragement; it seems to be

more inspired each time the complaints come.

What are the long-term consequences? I'm going to refer to an

article that was in the paper a couple of days ago. I say this with

great respect and great concern, and it's tragic that it should come to

this. In July 1983 the government made certain announcements about its

intentions with respect to achieving economies in services to people.

It said that in effect the government had no money of its own, that the

people of this province would have to realize that, and as a result it

was going to reduce all but the most essential of services in the

public sector. It proceeded to do so. There was an announcement out of

the Ministry of Human Resources which stated that in due course it was

going to perform open-heart surgery on the ministry. Open-heart

surgery, as you know. Mr. Speaker, is a hazardous operation, and in

some cases does not produce the desired results.

On July 25 the Minister of Human Resources issued this press

release. It was entitled: "Program and Staff Reductions in the Ministry

of Human Resources."

"In line with government direction for all ministries

and following a review of priorities for Human Resources services, the Ministry

of Human Resources will be making reductions in some programs and eliminating

others, with a corresponding reduction in staff positions between now and June

30, 1984. The ministry's core statutory services will not be affected. Social

workers, financial assistance

[ Page 3458 ]

workers and clerical staff will continue to provide the basic

social services, financial assistance services and child protection services

that are required by statute in British Columbia.

"Some specialized services, however, will be reduced or

eliminated in the interest of restraint. These include the family support worker

program, some services of the Lower Mainland Special Services Team and some

of the ministry-staffed child-care resources which operate in Vancouver and

Victoria. The elimination or reduction of these services, combined with a streamlining

of the ministry's service delivery, will result in the elimination of 735

full-time positions in the ministry. Not all of these position reductions will

affect regular employees, however, since many positions are currently being

held vacant in the ministry. The number of people affected is 599.

"In the 1982-83 budget the ministry had 5,990 full-time-equivalent

positions. A major reduction will take place through the elimination of the

family support worker program. Under this program, which began in 1978, child-care

workers in ministry offices provide services to children in their homes. The

termination of this program eliminates 259 positions in the ministry, affecting

226 people."

Mr. Speaker, nowhere did that statement indicate that there had been

consultation with the people providing those services in the community,

the rationale upon which it was based, and that notwithstanding the

reduction of staff in those pro grams, there would be guarantees of no

breakdown in the delivery of services and that continuity would be

continued.

In a further statement, the ministry stated more specifically that it:

" ...would be phasing out its 24 staffed child-care resources

which operate in Vancouver, with the exception of the intensive child-care resources

that provide crisis services. Ministry-staffed child-care resources account"

— this is almost a year ago —

"for 1.3 percent of the services to children in care. The

majority of children are cared for in foster homes or in resources that are

run by societies or individuals in contract with the ministry. Resources placements

provide care for 2,005 children, of which 109 are in staff-operated facilities.

This change will eliminate 183 positions and will affect 165 staff. Child-care

services provided in non-residential settings in Vancouver and Victoria will

also be phased out. The elimination of this program affects 44 positions.

"A restructuring of the boundaries of the ministry's

present 20 regions will be undertaken to reduce the number of regions

to 18. The other two regions will be amalgamated to streamline

administration and reduce the numbers of required staff. In addition,

the staff coordinating function provided by regional offices will be

reduced. The number of coordinating positions affected is 76, of which

23 are presently vacant."

The other 53 have been eliminated by now as well — all of this in the interest of restraint.

Before I get to the question that I wish to put to the House I would like to

read some quotes from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

I am going to specifically refer to the family support worker program, the one

that had the 226 employees, about whom the minister had a great deal to say,

as you will soon see. Incidentally, that was a program created by that minister

back in 1978, one which was spoken of quite highly by the Social Credit Party.

It was stated:

"The purpose of the family support worker service is to

support families in providing care and guidance for children within their own

homes and communities. Family support workers should endeavour to enforce the

authority of parents and assist them in exercising this authority responsibly.

Their daily work should reflect the attitude that the family unit is a primary

resource for a child."

That is from the "Guidelines for Family Support Worker Service,"

the Ministry of Human Resources policy manual.

There is also a statement by the Hon. Grace McCarthy, and she states....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Do you mean to tell me that after four or five years you've changed your policies and your philosophy completely?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, you just keep listening and see if you think that this is an appropriate way to make those changes.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Speak to the Chair.

MR. BARNES: It seems as though you guys are getting testy over there.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to discuss something objectively and with

respect, and I'm trying to involve these members in exercising another

level of their sensitivities. Perhaps they could consider that there

are some people in British Columbia who are not enemies of the

government and who perhaps don't even understand the political system,

and for good reason care very little, because the system seems to care

very little about them. We are trying to change that and to suggest

that we begin to listen to some of those people out there who are

asking to be heard. They are losing faith.

[10:45]

Here is a headline which states: "Do Alternative Support Networks Exist

for these Families?" This is the hon. Minister of Human Resources, and

she was stating, after some deliberation, I'm sure: "In other times grandmother

would come to help out." To put it in context, this is when she's bringing

the family support workers program in, not taking it out. "The neighbours

would surround the family with some support and love and do some work for them.

It doesn't happen anymore, and why doesn't it? Because government has

taken over that role. Maybe government shouldn't have. Perhaps we have held

people's hands really a little too long. The government doesn't have

to hold the hand of anybody. We want to be independent, and we want government

off our backs." This is Grace McCarthy after terminating the amenity. It

is hard to believe that a minister would say that after having introduced a

program and having convinced all of us that it was a good deal.

July 30, 1979. " 'People need help,' says Human Resources minister

Grace McCarthy, 'just as the family needs support and help. Ida and her

children would almost certainly have required full-time care if the

family support worker had

[ Page 3459 ]

not come to their aid. Our object is to help

families help themselves.' " I am sure that was spoken in sincerity by

the minister, because she knows that not everyone is fortunate enough

to have their lives go on without problems, without breakdowns. Not

everyone is lucky enough to inherit the estate of a wealthy relative,

or even to win a sweepstake prize. So the minister introduced the

family support worker, a term that perhaps the public doesn't

understand, and she had the support of the B.C. Association of Social

Workers.

The Social Credit government had a very good thing going. It had a

chance to really have a heart. The family support worker program was

probably one of the most cost-effective programs ever introduced in

North America. It was a program that cost something like $1,000 to

$1,250 per year per child. That's what one worker could do. One of

those workers would carry anywhere from 20 to 30 cases. There were

something like 225 of them in the province of British Columbia. They

were going into homes, affecting something like 5,000 families in this

province. They were families in need, in crisis or in stress, with

particular difficulties. You must consider that 5,000 families out of

perhaps a couple of million is not a bad number. Certainly it's not

beyond our means to ensure that those families remain as integrated as

possible in order to protect the rest of society from the consequences

of neglect, which is what appears to be the case now. What has happened

to those 5,000 families? Who are those 5,000 families? What makes them

different from others? The B.C. Association of Social Workers and other

organizations have quite a bit to say about those families and why

they're different. Here are some of the appeals.

Here is a July 1983 press release from the B.C. Association of

Social Workers, just after your government brought in the legislation

which included the termination of many of these employees.

" ' The plan to lay off a large number of staff

providing vital and important functions in the Ministry of Human

Resources will be absolutely disastrous for many children and families

in British Columbia.' said B.C. Association of Social Workers'

president, Roop Seebaran. The reduction of services resulting from the

dismissal of workers providing family support services, services in

child abuse cases and rehabilitation and other services to a number of

individuals and families will turn a ministry which is already

understaffed into a system of chaos. Reports from association members

indicate that workers in these service areas will be receiving their

pink slips on Monday.

"Dismissing these workers is irrational enough, but

the manner in which it is being executed will leave many families and

individuals now being helped by these workers without adequate guidance

and support. In laying off these workers, the ministry is losing people

with specialized skills to help families in trouble. The loss of this

staff and the work they do, both in preventing crisis in families as

well as helping those in crisis, will mean a disaster for the ministry

as a helping system.

"We repeat that any reductions in the staff level of the

Ministry of Human Resources at this time will result in widespread, long-term

and permanent damage to our society's most precious resources, our children

and our families. Our association protests in the strongest possible terms this

planned dismissal, and urges both the Premier and the Minister of Human Resources

to rescind the decision."

That was unheeded, as most of us know. The people have been fired.

There are more representations, more letters — some to the Premier, some to the minister — from all walks of life.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There is one sad note to all this, one that I regret has come to

light. It is already public knowledge. I'm not bringing new news. There

is probably very little new news, Mr. Speaker.

It's just a matter of when people decide to come forward and state

their case, or when by accident we stumble across some of these

problems. What is really happening as a result of these cutbacks? What

are the consequences? How do we monitor? How do we find out? Who's

responsible?

We have a Family and Child Service Act in this province. The family

and child services legislation suggests that we care about families and

children. It suggests that, for obvious reasons, they are probably one

of the most essential units within our civilized society. We grew from

family protection to family services. We grew from the mentality of

apprehending children, to trying to support their families in

understanding the difficult and complex nature of people trying to fend

for themselves in our contemporary society. No two families are the

same. Every family has its own unique character, its own set of

circumstances, and this is a complex problem. This is why I wonder how

the cabinet, despite all of its resources and technological advantages

as far as getting information, researching and polling for public

opinion — all of those things that the government has the facility to

do — can unilaterally and without consultation, without even involving

the opposition, or anyone for that matter — make a decision to dismiss

226 people looking after the 5,000 families in this province that have

been designated as having special needs, being under special stress.

These are not ordinary families that have members employed and are

getting along just fine in society. They have problems, generational

problems; problems that go back to their fathers and mothers, their

uncles and sisters, and it just keeps on going. Everybody is involved

in it. This is called a generational hard-core situation.

This is one of the things that I would appeal to the government and

the Minister of Human Resources to look at on a non-political basis.

There is no political mileage in it for me, Mr. Speaker, to discuss

this matter that I am about to raise; no hope of gaining some political

advantage. This is a very serious human problem. We are all British

Columbians. Any of us at any time could be in a situation such as this.

It is not good enough to point a finger and try to lay blame. It is

time we realized that all of us are subject to despair and hard times.

It can befall anybody, and it has befallen this family; it is

unfortunate that it has happened in such a way as to raise questions.

We can't condemn; we do not condemn. There are probably extenuating

circumstances that we don't know about. This is why the use of the

family support worker as opposed to apprehending children from families

— putting them in foster homes and extended-care facilities, or any

other means.... That is not the most desirable approach.

The Ministry of Human Resources knew this in 1978 when they brought

in the family support worker, a mobile person specially trained,

specially skilled and equipped to be available on a regular basis in a

crisis or an emergency. It has

[ Page 3460 ]

got to be inconsistent with the government's recent

comments about allowing the public to help itself; allowing the

community to get involved in self-help. This couldn't be better,

because you go to the site; you go to the venue; you go to the place,

the community, where the people are. You don't pull them out; you go

where they are. It is consistent with what we are attempting to do at

Tranquille with the mentally retarded. We are going to put them into

the community and take them out of the institution. It is consistent

with our belief that the family unit is the best and most efficient way

for all of us to survive, but we have got to support them. We need to

realize that there are breakdowns. They do not always function

successfully. This is what a civilized society is about. We depend on

these people as well as them depending on us, because if we neglect

them, what options do they have? What alternatives do they have? What

will they do? Where will they go?

On Wednesday, February 22, 1984, an

article appeared in the Province

written by staff reporter Don Hunter and his freelance associate Dick

Floyd, in which they reported to the public a most tragic and

unfortunate event in the community of Cranbrook. This community is like

many in the province of British Columbia. They are remote from the

central services, remote from resources that we may be accustomed to in

the lower mainland in some of the more populated communities, so in the

very best of times they need extra attention, extra care. Their

situation is a lot more delicate and a lot more desperate.

An event happened in Cranbrook that is indeed tragic. Although I

certainly do not believe it typifies the conditions that exist in the

province, nonetheless it is an extreme example of some of the things

that can happen. We want to avoid as many of these extreme situations

as we can. We hope that the more common situation that family-support

workers work in is far less than this kind of situation. There was a

young girl — a baby really — whom this story was written about, Deidre

Bohnenkamp, who died on January 19 in the Cranbrook District Hospital.

"Her middle name — a happy sound — was Windsong. She

was 13 months old, and life had been hell. She'd been severely spanked

repeatedly. She'd been forced to sit in cold water. And more.

"Ministry of Human Resources workers were supposed to

have been monitoring little Deidre's life, but the last time they went

to her home was more than six full weeks before her death.

"Shortly after she died, her mother, father and the

mother's boyfriend, all of whom lived together, were questioned at

length about alleged sexual assaults on the child. They say they were

again asked similar questions two weeks ago while undergoing polygraph

tests. The mother's boyfriend said the questions were about buggery.

Cranbrook RCMP say the case is under investigation and will not discuss

the matter. They await a final pathologist's report. The mother says

she was told the cause of death was an aneurysm — a burst blood vessel.

Area coroner Alan Askey will not comment. The night the baby died she

had been rushed to hospital after collapsing while being fed supper.

The child was sitting on the boyfriend's lap at the time, eating

creamed corn.

[11:00]

"The funeral was held January 25 at the Church of the

Latter Day Saints. The boyfriend made the funeral arrangements and

built the coffin.

"Deidre was the daughter of Cory Bohnenkamp, 22, and

his wife Linda, 21. He is originally from California, she from Golden,

B.C. Until recently he worked as a hotel cook. The Bohnenkamps are no

longer together, Cory having moved to Vancouver. Linda Bohnenkamp now

lives with her boyfriend, who was with her the night the baby died. He

was Linda Bohnenkamp's live-in boyfriend before Cory Bohnenkamp left

town. The three of them and the child shared an apartment for some time.

"The MHR came into the life of Deidre Windsong

Bohnenkamp last August 15, when she was seized by child welfare

officials. At a hearing in family court three days later, Judge Leo

A.T. Nimsick heard a report from the MHR worker, Terry Killoran. It

described family friends' reports of repeated spanking of the child —

'often with the result that Deidre turned tomato-red and couldn't even

gasp for air for up to 20 seconds.' The report said the child was

forced to sit in cold water for up to ten minutes at a time as

punishment. It said the baby was forced to drink a whole bottle of

beer, and marijuana smoke was blown in the baby's face. Other witnesses

have since told the Province

that the baby was also splashed repeatedly with cold water, and shaken,

forcing her to stay awake so that later she would sleep through the

night.

"At the hearing, in which the Bohnenkamps were represented

by legal aid counsel, Judge Nimsick ruled the parents were entitled to custody,

but attached certain conditions: that the child's care be supervised by

the superintendent of child welfare 'with frequent worker visits at any

time'; that the boyfriend 'be prohibited absolutely from any contact

whatsoever with the child'; that the parents seek family counselling. In

a subsequent hearing in October, these conditions were extended through to

January 6, 1984, but Linda Bohnenkamp says the last time an MHR worker visited

was last November. And witnesses say the boyfriend ignored the court ban

and was a frequent overnight visitor at the Bohnenkamp home during the prohibited

period. He simply stayed, they say, and the treatment of the baby did not improve.

'You got the impression they were talking to a dog,' said one eyewitness.

'They treated Deidre like they were training an animal.'

"Linda Bohnenkamp has told thei that at first an MHR

worker called in and chatted about once a week, but that after November

none ever called again. She said the weekly visits did not include any

checking on the baby.

"Ted Hurd, local MHR supervisor, said he can't, by

law, discuss any individual case. He said, however, that the number and

type of visits conducted under a court order normally would be at the

discretion of MHR staff. 'It would depend on the situation.'

"The boyfriend told the Province he

moved back permanently into the Bohnenkamp apartment on January 12. A

week later, he said, he was feeding Deidre on his lap when 'she

collapsed.' He said efforts to

[ Page 3461 ]

revive her failed, and he and Linda Bohnenkamp rushed the baby

to the hospital.

"The baby had a long, narrow bruise on her face during

early January. Linda Bohnenkamp says the bruise was caused by a fall

from the crib. 'She was always falling from the crib,' she said.

"At the moment Linda and the boyfriend are planning to

get an apartment and set about rebuilding their lives. Linda Bohnenkamp

believes she is pregnant with her boyfriend's child." Now, Mr.

Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm told

we're having a little trouble with our lights. I'm told that your time

has elapsed.

MR. BARNES: Well, in light of the lights and the difficulty

there, I would appreciate it if you would allow me an additional five

minutes to wind up, because I had no warning whatsoever.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The green light was on, hon. member, so....

MR. BARNES: If there are any objections, then I will sit down, but I would ask the House to give me leave for another five minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

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

would suggest that we abide by the rules of the House so that we don't

set dangerous precedents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The suggestion has been made that we abide by

the rules of the House, so I'll ask the question once again. Shall

leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. BARNES: I had some questions to ask, questions with

respect to the role of the ministry, but I can appreciate that the

members do not wish to hear those, and there's nothing I can do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we get back to the main question, hon. member, you'll have that opportunity.

MR. CAMPBELL: As I listened to the speaker previous to

myself, I thought he had some very good points. One of the ones he

talked about was when the Minister of Human Resources had said earlier

that the people of British Columbia wished the government to butt out

of their lives. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)

suggested that this was not the case. I refer that first member for

Vancouver Centre to the Times-Colonist of February 24, which is

this morning's newspaper. It has a story about a woman whose

18-year-old son refused to conform to the rules of the home; she asked

him to leave. This young man of 18 had gone to Human Resources because

he refused to obey the rules of the house of his parents, and he is now

suing his mother. His mother said she's asking the government to butt

out of her life. I quote that from the Times-Colonist of today.

That member also talks about the government paying off some of the

debts. Yes, this government is paying off some of the debts. I don't

believe the people of this province are opposed to the government

paying off debts. I believe the people of this province understand that

when you charge up debts they must be paid off. So, Mr. Member for

Vancouver Centre, I just mention those few points to you, as I feel I

must disagree with you on those points.

Now back to the budget. As I stand here this morning, I would like

to say that I support this budget. This is the first budget that has a

decrease in British Columbia in 31 years. One of the reasons this

government is able to decrease the budget to our people is the

restraint program that was implemented in 1983. It was the compensation

stabilization program that came in in 1982 that laid the groundwork so

that the government could control the cost of the civil service. The

government could control costs so that our costs didn't keep on

escalating, charging more and more. That is the philosophy of the

members who sit across the way; it's forever on the charge card. That's

the way to run the province, they say. Fortunately the people of this

province do not agree with that. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, on May 5,

1983, the people of this province told the people across the way that

they did not agree with that philosophy.

The decrease in expenditures is 6.2 percent in 1984. It's

unfortunate that the federal government in Ottawa has not followed the

example of this province. As their deficits keep on increasing at $30

billion a year with no slowdown of the increased deficits in sight, it

makes one wonder where that government is heading. I believe the next

election will show where that government's heading. That government in

Ottawa simply acts like baby NDPs.

Our deficit this year will be $671 million. It's unfortunate that it

is that high; but fortunately the economy is recovering, jobs are being

created and our employment in 1983 did increase 2 percent. So things

are turning very slowly.

If there's one thing that this province needs, it's stability. This

government is trying to give this province stability, and we ask the

members across the way to assist this government in bringing stability

to this province. Will they help? I would hope they would help, because

nobody gains when we have divisions among our people here. I think one

prime example of that today is the pulp workers' strike. The IWA has

settled on their contract; the pulp workers have not. They're now out

in a lockout strike. They've got flying pickets going around shutting

down the IWA operations. Another 12,000 people are out because of the

flying pickets. What do we hear from these opposition members across

here? Are they trying to exert any calming influence upon their union

cohorts? No, Mr. Speaker. Why not? Well, I guess the people who control

the purse-strings will also control what these people across the way

wish to promote.

Interjections.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right. That's the socialist philosophy.

If they could tear the country down.... They're more interested in

tearing the country down than they are in trying to create stability

and security for our people, jobs for our people and prosperity for our

people.

Oh, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). We're very

pleased to see him. He's not in here very often, but when he is in,

it's great to have him here. He's here to apologize, of course. He

criticized our Forests minister a

[ Page 3462 ]

couple of days ago, and asked the Forests minister

to resign because of the ombudsman's report. The ombudsman issued his

second statement, admitted his error and apologized. The ombudsman

realized he had made a mistake. He was man enough to say: "I made a

mistake and I apologize." But, Mr. Speaker, did that member from

Vancouver East over there, who asked the minister to resign, apologize?

No, he didn't apologize. He sits there, but he won't apologize.

Interjections.

MR. CAMPBELL: There's the second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) — first time this week. I'd like to welcome him too. How

pleased we are that you're here on Fridays.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the natural resource revenues of the

province are still not coming up as they should, because British

Columbia's an exporting province and our products are virtually being

sold on a world market. As the prices are depressed, the revenues are

not coming up as we would have hoped. The logging tax this year will be

down 54 percent from 1982.

MR. MACDONALD: I wouldn't doubt it.

[11:15]

MR. CAMPBELL: You wouldn't doubt it? Yes, that's right.

As the world economy picks up and as we get a few more sawmills

being built here, like the new sawmill that's going to be built in

Chemainus, hopefully revenues will pick up.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many jobs?

MR. CAMPBELL: There'll be 125 to 150 jobs, Mr. Member. That's

a sign of confidence within our province. The investors have

confidence, and the reason they have confidence is that this government

is promoting this type of confidence. This government realizes that we

must have stability here. These investors are pleased with that —

that's why they're investing.

One more thing I would like to speak on is health. I've heard their

members talk on and on about health care in this province. Last year

they were complaining about health care. This government is providing

the best health care in Canada. But because of the problems coming out

of Ottawa, there have been changes in taxation. Our costs keep

escalating because of wages, because of many things within the health

care system, such as better treatments. As these costs escalate, they

must be paid for by the people of this province. If the federal

government is not going to continue with their 50 percent share of the

cost, then the costs will have to be paid by the people of this

province. Last year, when user fees increased by $1 per day, with an

average stay in hospital of five and a half days, it cost the average

person in hospital an extra $5.50. These members across here spoke for

days and days on that bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Screamed.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, they were screaming, saying how evil this government was to increase it by $1 a day.

So what happens now? Now we have to have another tax to pay for

this, because it must be paid for. And now they complain about that. It

really doesn't matter whether it's a user fee today or a tax tomorrow

or a decrease in the budget the next day; they criticize every day.

They have a negative approach. They had a negative approach last year,

they've got a negative approach this year and they've had a negative

approach for the past 50 years. That's why they're sitting as

opposition.

One of the things that these harder times have done is bring down

inflation. From 1982 till 1983 the inflation rate dropped from 14.1

percent to 5.5 percent. The people who worked and saved their money and

are going into retirement are now able to live at a better living

standard than if inflation had carried on at that 14 percent rate. Can

you imagine where these retired senior citizens would be in the next

five or ten years if inflation had carried on and if we had gone down

that slippery slope of borrowing money? Borrowing money every time

costs increased is exactly what would have happened. Inflation would

have kept on escalating. Fortunately our Premier realized that that was

not the way to go. Our Finance minister realized that's not the way to

go. Inflation has declined to 5.5 percent.

I would like to mention a few things about the employment situation

within our province. We went through a very difficult year last year

and there were a lot of problems out on the street what with Solidarity

and the fear being promoted by our members across the way here. But

when reality and sensibility finally took hold, the government

employees settled, the ferry workers settled and the IWA settled. The

people out there realize that they can't take more out of the

marketplace than they put in. Fortunately these people have settled

their contracts, and we look forward to more stable labour relations in

1984. I believe we'll have more stable relations if these people don't

stir up fear within the working people. I hope that they don't promote

the type of fear and division that they have in the past.

I believe we have a lot of very exciting things that are going to

happen in the next two to three years, including 1984. In February of

this year the Dillingham construction company opened their first office

in Revelstoke, getting ready for the double-tracking of the railroad.

Because this government fought to have the Crow rate changed last year,

I might say that that group opposed it. They opposed it in Ottawa and

they opposed it here, but because it passed through Ottawa and through

briefs being prepared by many sections of the economy, there will be

between $5.5 billion and $7 billion spent over the next seven years on

double-tracking the railroad. That money is going to create a lot of

jobs in British Columbia, and the people over there are going to

realize what a great boost that is going to be to this economy. That

will be $1 billion a year for the next seven years, just in the

double-tracking of the railroad.

When you think of Expo, $1.5 billion to $2 billion is going to be spent on construction in 1984 and 1985. And in 1986....

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, in spite of Bruce Yorke, and in spite of

other people who have opposed it, Mr. Speaker — in spite of the

negative-thinking people who have opposed Expo and B.C. Place. At the

Grey Cup game last November the people who had earlier opposed B.C.

Place were standing up there very proud and saying: "Isn't this

magnificent!" Oh,

[ Page 3463 ]

how fast they change hats when they realize the error of their ways.

When we have 15 million to 20 million tourists attending Expo 86 and

travelling to Victoria and to the north end of the Island spending

their money....

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll be going all the way to Courtenay.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, they'll be going to Courtenay.

If those people over there encourage the tourists to come, they will

do so. Of course, if they put forward a very negative attitude, the

tourists may not go there; they may come to the Okanagan. And we're

going to welcome them in the Okanagan. They know they're welcome there;

there's no question about that. So if those people over there don't

wish the tourists to go their way, then they can have their say, but in

the Okanagan we want them and we'll welcome them. They'll come because

they'll know they're going to be treated right.

Interjections.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I realize you'll take them in Cranbrook.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: You'll take them fishing! Mr. Speaker, even the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is looking for the tourists up

there, and I think that's great, because there are going to be a lot of

tourists wanting to go to Prince Rupert. They'll want to see the great

north country of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. CAMPBELL: If between 15 million and 20 million people

come here, and only 10 or 15 percent travel through our province,

millions and millions of dollars will be spent which will create jobs

for our people. A lot of it will be new money coming from other

provinces, from the U.S., from Europe and from the Pacific Rim.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, they're going to take apples back with

them, Mr. Speaker, and that will be great, because one thing the

Okanagan produces is the best apples in Canada, perhaps the best in the

world. So when the tourists take those apples back, they can do so with

pride. The member for Prince Rupert has told me that they have the best

fish in B.C., so I'm sure the tourists will also take the fish back

with pride.

Interjections.

MR. CAMPBELL: Let's hear about the fish? Oh no, we want to talk about the cohos, not the pinkos. We're going to talk about the sockeyes.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is nearly gone. I would like to encourage

the opposition to join the government by having a very positive

attitude toward this budget and to promote it, because they know it is

a good one, even if they don't wish to admit it. I know they have a

political position to take, and that's fine in here, but when they go

and talk to their friends I'd ask them to say: "What we said in the

House really wasn't what we thought, because we agree the budget is

good. It is taking less money out of the economy. This government has

cut costs and increased revenue. So just take what we said in the House

with a grain of salt. We really know deep down this budget is a good

one."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Apologize!

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, how I love that chorus over

there. You know, I'm probably the only member of this chamber who's

been called a liar by almost every dingbat in the province of British

Columbia.

I'm not going to raise my voice in speaking to this amendment. Mr.

Speaker, with you in the chair, I want to thank people who wished me

well during my recent bout in the hospital when I lost my appendix. I

didn't lose the index, so if you want me to look anything up, I can do

that. All the good will. A member on the government side even wished me

godspeed. I wonder what in the heck he meant by that. I had visits. I

had a visit from somebody in my constituency who was interested in

running in my seat. He said to me in the hospital: "My, you're looking

fine. You'll be running the next time, and maybe the time after that."

And I said to him: "Thanks very much for your good wishes, but would

you mind taking your foot off my oxygen hose?" Another one came in with

a spot of mental trouble and wondered if he should run. I said, "Yes,

by all means. It'll never be noticed in Victoria." Anyway, three ages

of man, they say, or as the member for Coquitlam-Moody says: "Young,

middle-aged and 'my, you're looking fine.' "

I don't know whether the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Reynolds) is in the chamber, but he was having a great time thrashing

around the ombudsman in the safety of the privileged walls of this

Legislature. I noticed a little clipping about him. He no doubt is

listening intently to everything I have to say. I notice all that

sniping at the ombudsman. He has been appointed by this Legislature to

carry out a public duty, and the sniping ought to stop. We ought to

respect the man and the office, because he has a position that's very

much like that of a judge, and he should be respected.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said: you should

respect the man and the office. This kind of sniping is part of the

government's coverup, and I think it should stop. If you're going to

snipe like that and move motions of privilege, then I want to assure

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) that we would

support a motion of privilege to have the ombudsman be entitled to have

his day before a committee of this Legislature. I don't think that he

has done anything that cannot be defended. He has reason and right on

his side. If the government has the courage of its convictions, instead

of this sniping and backstabbing, give him his time before a committee

of this Legislature.

Interjections.

[ Page 3464 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Whoa! What a ridiculous statement. I stand up

in the Legislature and I read from a public report and ask whether the

contents of this paragraph are true or not. And for that I should

apologize? You know, the smokescreen, the sniping and the back-stabbing

that is going on from the government benches is an obvious attempt to

derail, detrack and sideline the ombudsman's investigation into

millions of dollars of lost public and private money.

[11:30]

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that ridiculous nattering by the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) ought to

cease. Ridiculous nattering from a minister of the Crown!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Apologize.

MR. MACDONALD: I have nothing to apologize for — nothing.

Mr. Speaker, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound resigned his seat in

Ottawa. In the Kamloops Sentinel , Ian Weir has this to say about how he did

it. "He called a press conference and announced his impending retirement

as a Conservative MP. They all got a press release announcing: 'Reynolds'

Retirement After his Mediocre Political Career.' " And then, of course,

the press were quite taken aback at such a display of honesty. About 10:30 or

so another press release came flying down from the office of John Reynolds,

MP. Apparently his secretary had made a small critical error in taking dictation.

The word dictated was "meteoric," not "mediocre." You can

imagine how the press would be so easily confused. The distance from the hon.

member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to a position in the cabinet is more like

the distance to the nearest star than to a meteor.

I want to say a little bit more on this question of the ombudsman's

investigation. I was listening to Mr. Mahood and Mr. Percy, neither of

whom is a Marxist socialist. These are Mr. Mahood's words. He said

there was an "unhealthy embrace" between the big forest companies and

the Forests ministry. I would think that would be something to turn

over to the Ministry of Health. It certainly calls for a public

inquiry. Mr. Percy went on to say that there is a fear of the big

companies in the Forests ministry. These are very serious allegations

by people, not of the opposition's persuasion, who are knowledgeable in

the industry and who are saying there's something rotten in the

Ministry of Forests.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

1 think the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith'

s) attempt to block

the investigation is one of the silliest things I've ever heard of in

this House or outside it. I note that Mr. Williston, the former

Minister of Forests, in speaking today had something to say about it

when he was asked: "Has there been any suggestion of criminal

activity?" His answer was: "There has never been any." This has annoyed

me very much. To start bringing the RCMP in and playing cops and

robbers, and all the rest of the stuff, just annoys me. You are

destroying people. He says the position of the Attorney-General of

British Columbia, on some vague suggestion that somewhere in there

there could be criminal activity, that there might be a charge laid

someday, is totally silly. For the Attorney-General of the province of

British Columbia to try to block the ombudsman in the execution of his

duty is a disgrace to his office. He's unworthy to be sitting in that

chair as the Attorney-General of British Columbia.

We're talking about the amendment at a time when it is estimated

that 63,000 jobs have been eliminated in the province of British

Columbia. We hear government members getting up, one after the other,

and lauding this kind of budget. The unemployment rate is 15.2 percent

in British Columbia. It is higher even than in such economically

depressed areas as Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Quebec. That's

a shame and a disaster in a budget that made no provision whatsoever to

try to give young people coming out of high schools and universities

the opportunity to work. It's an uncompassionate budget that has been

brought down by this Minister of Finance.

I want to say something about what's happening in the schools that

is related to unemployment. This is part of the answer of the

government to this question. The government and the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) are turning our educational system into

employment centres rather than schools for the provision of general

education. There are cost squeezes and compulsory courses — math,

science and other things — which inevitably downgrade the traditional

arts and humanities. That's not producing jobs. Of course we should

upgrade our technical and vocational schools. But we should upgrade the

whole of the educational system. Crawford Kilian had this to say about

the budget. He said that loss of local control of budgets, loss of

adequate working and learning conditions, loss of community involvement

in the community colleges and loss of job security for educators are

all creating uncertainty and demoralization out there. If this

government has its way with its hardware store mentality, we will have

cultural illiterates, and young people who can't deal with the present

or the future because the past is a blank page. What did Gray say in

his elegy? He said: "Knowledge to their eyes her ample scroll, rich

with the spoils of time, did n'er unroll." I do support the continuance

of a well-financed, broad, liberal education in our school system, but

that is what is being destroyed by this government. We will be a

society deficient in the ordinary civilities that make democracy work,

with our young people ignorant of literature and politics. Do we really

want pinheads who can be counted upon to vote for the Social Credit

Party? Do we want a society of financial ignoramuses who will support

the self-serving rich man's economics of Michael Walker? Do we want a

society barren of culture and knowledge — trained dumbos to attract

international capital to our shores? That is what we are getting. Jesse

Jackson, one of the presidential aspirants in the United States, said

that America needs developed minds, not guided missiles, and so do we.

We are talking about jobs in a way. Albert Einstein would not have

made his great scientific discoveries in the field of relativity had he

not also had a broad perspective of the humanities, of history and of

literature. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and his

colleagues disparage the public schools — badmouthing the quality of

education, complaining that discipline must be restored. I don't think

the minister has the faintest idea of what he is talking about. I don't

think he has been in the schools, as I have.

I'll give you a picture of Gladstone Secondary School at about

half-past eleven in the morning. I went there to give a lunch-time talk

in the library. I look through the glass doors of the classrooms, and I

see in there intent, serious young

[ Page 3465 ]

people, very anxious about the modern world;

listening intently to a teacher who is doing a very capable job and is

holding their attention, and you can hear a pin drop, even though the

teacher was giving his discourse and doing it very well. And yet here

we are, directly and indirectly deprecating teachers and students. I

have been into the elementary schools too, and I have seen the very

good work that the teachers are doing in those schools in terms of

children of all the races and creeds of mankind and some with real

learning and language disabilities. The teachers are patient,

understanding and hard-working. They have a rapport with and are

supportive of those young people.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Money was not the issue. Don't make out the

teachers as being greedy for money. That was part of the attack upon

the education system and the people who work in it. They understand the

economy; they understand when we have zero growth; they understand this

budget; and they understand that they are not going to get the wage

raises that they would have in more productive times. That's not the

issue.

Suppose, Mr. Speaker, we had a Minister of Defence badmouthing the

army, the way the Minister of Education is badmouthing the educational

system of this province. The minister doesn't spell out the purpose of

education. He has never articulated the purpose of education, and I

suggest it is because he doesn't know any other purpose in the

educational system than providing a pool of skilled labour for

industry. He has demoralized pupils and teachers alike. He changes his

budget every second month, I suppose on a memorandum from the Premier's

office or from the Minister of Finance. Schools and trustees have no

idea where they stand.

The teachers and the trustees are now dealing with an educational

system where the retention rate is 86 percent compared to 25 years ago,

when it was 36 percent. I think the hon. members know what I mean by

"retention rate." I mean the people who don't go off into the job

market or drop out of the system or don't carry on to high school

graduation.

MR. HANSON: There's nowhere to go.

MR. MACDONALD: That is partly why the retention rate is up,

but it's partly because we have a good educational system. We shouldn't

be knocking, knocking, knocking at that educational system — knocking

the teachers, knocking the trustees by taking away local control. Yet

with that greater retention rate in the schools, the quality of

education in this province is good and would be improving, were it not

for the very black clouds that this government is casting over the

whole system.

I think the teachers and pupils alike deserve an A and a pat on the

back. I think we should restore the balance — technical education and

the humanities — instead of denying young people the broad education

that is their birthright if we are to remain civilized. I support this

amendment, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to take my place and listen with

intent interest to another Reaganite speech from the government back

benches. I recognize that we are now in that kind of an age where the

economics of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and probably Brian

Mulroney too, although he is a little more diplomatic in expressing

what he really thinks about it.... We are living in an age which may

last for another year or two when big government is the enemy, not big

business. So don't let government help people. Don't let government

have employment programs. Cut it back. Leave it all to the big sharks

out there with their multimillion dollars, and say: "Will you please be

good to the common people?"

Government is to help people. Government is to extend programs in

all the fields of life to bring people along because there are

disparities in our society which are unbelievable. It's all very well

for those who are born rich or got rich by trickery or luck and in some

cases by hard work, or somebody who has won a million-dollar lottery —

these people back your budget. Rich people don't need the kind of

services you're cutting and slashing — the kind of thing that the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) was talking about a short

while ago. You talk about the taxpayers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Taxpayer's ability to pay.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the taxpayer's ability to pay. Would you

tell me which taxpayer you're speaking of? Let's just analyze that a

little bit. I can take you to taxpayers who are paying far too little,

and I can take you to taxpayers who are poor and who are paying far too

much. Yet you just say: "The taxpayer has an awful load, and he's

complaining; he's complaining so hard he's throwing money into the

Social Credit Party." I know the kind of taxpayers you're talking

about, and I think it's time we stood up for the ordinary people of

this province. That used to be the role of government — to defend the

underprivileged and the disadvantaged, to try to secure some social

equality in this province. You don't believe in it. You believe in a

hereditary aristocracy of wealth that may be good to the ordinary

people. We believe in social democracy, and we will win.

[11:45]

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, it's rather moving for this

relatively young member of the House to listen to that stirring address

by the hon. second member for Vancouver East, but I wonder aloud what

his property taxes are for his family residence in West Point Grey. I'm

sure that really isn't relevant to a man preaching all this social

democracy.

MR. MACDONALD: They're too low.

MR. PARKS: I'm sure that if the hon. member sincerely

believes that his property taxes are too low, an appeal to the

Assessment Authority would be well appreciated. I'm sure he could fight

that case and succeed in having that assessment raised.

I rise, obviously, to speak in opposition to the amendment and in

support of one of the finest budgets that this House has seen. I

respectfully suggest that it's one of the finest budgets because

notwithstanding the very difficult economic times in this world and in

particular this province, we have a budget that I think we should and

can all be proud of. In this budget we see the positive results of

having the proper stage set in the last two years.

If I may refresh the memory of this House, I refer to a number of

comments the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) made in

tendering his 1983 budget:

"The message in the budget is clear and unequivocal. Only

by recognizing the necessity for restraint by government taking a role which

allows

[ Page 3466 ]

private sector initiatives to provide permanent and productive

jobs can British Columbia attain a secure and bright economic future. In recognition

of this fact, the budget is designed to rebuild and restore the provincial economy

by adjusting the balance between public and private sector activities. Importantly,

it heralds a new era of lean and efficient government based on continued restraint,

increased public service productivity and a vigilant containment of public sector

costs."

These were comments that the hon. Minister of Finance made in his budget address

last year. I would suggest the record clearly indicates that he understood what

was necessary. He put forth the budget that was necessary, and this year we

are beginning to see the rewards of that effort.

In this year's budget, as we're all aware, the revenue component has increased some $470 million.

Excuse me — that is the transfer. The revenue fund has increased

some 7 percent and the expenditures have been reduced by more than 6

percent. Not only is it exceptional that we have a reduction in

provincial expenditures; I think it's clearly a tribute to the tack

that has been taken by this government in the last three years.

I don't think it's necessary to review the various aspects of the

budget. I'm sure that we're going to hear time and again, in particular

from the government side, members speaking in support of it, but to

this moment I haven't heard any concrete criticism of the various

components of the budget. Accordingly, I'm going to restrict my

comments this morning to how I feel the budget is affecting my

constituency.

We see a budget that contains restricted expenditures, and yet

expenditures which allow for growth of the lower mainland, in

particular my constituency of Maillardville-Coquitlam. I see the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is here; I

think it's appropriate to recognize and make sure the record notes that

we have had in our area some 40-plus million dollars expended in the

past few years to increase the transportation corridor around the

Mayfair shopping centre and the Mary Hill bypass. This year — at this

time, as a matter of fact — the southwest connector of Coquitlam, the

north road overpass, is being rebuilt. Obviously that is a tremendous

advantage for my constituency, because when ALRT — another project that

has been fitted into our budget regardless of the very difficult

economic times — comes on stream in New Westminster in 1986, this

foresighted expansion of the north road connector will allow our

commuter transit to get in there and use the ALRT system.

However, that in itself is not enough. I appreciate that it's not

the Minister of Highways' jurisdiction, but I would say to the minister

responsible for rapid transit that I think it is integral that we have

ALRT committed to the northeast sector. In fact, it probably would be

appropriate to have ALRT extended not only to Coquitlam, but yes, also

south of the river to Surrey. Study after study indicates that the

growth area of the lower mainland is in those two areas alone. For this

province to take advantage of the tremendous assets that are stored

particularly in the northeast sector — and I'm thinking of the

Riverview lands, the Westwood Plateau and the Burke mountain complex —

and in order for them to come on stream, we require a transportation

system that can service those new industries, new jobs and new

residents. ALRT into Coquitlam is a necessity, and I will be continuing

to work to gain that result.

We have the revelation out of the Ministry of Education that the

funds saved in last fall's dispute, the salary savings, are of course

being returned to the education system. For the benefit of the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I note again that study after study

has indicated that the school district of Coquitlam has traditionally

established itself as one of the most efficiently administered school

districts in this province. There are provisions for curriculum

development, publication services, a provincial education media centre,

learning assessment and capital projects. I would respectfully submit

to the Ministry of Education that it follow through with its initial

program of recognizing the more efficient school districts and ensuring

that a very healthy share of those funds that we returned to the

education system be directed toward School District 43.

To date we have had very little specific complaints from the

opposition in the budget debate and the debate on the amendment. A lot

of the comment can best be described as general, non-specific and, to

be generous, with mere fuzzy thought backing it up. The member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), referring to the budget in his remarks, accused

the Minister of Finance, because of the artful reorganization in

spending estimates, of having in fact distorted the picture of our

province, and that it would take many months to determine the true

impact on British Columbia society of the expenditure proposals tabled

in the budget proposal. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that was the least

bit accurate, and I don't think it recognizes the facts. Clearly, B.C.

taxpayers are getting one of fairest deals in Canada. Admittedly there

has been a relatively nominal increase in taxes in this budget. There

has been a standardization in the social services tax. The one true

increase is of course the surtax pertaining to health care.

Where does that leave us in relation to the rest of the country, Mr.

Speaker? In fact our portion of taxation is the second lowest in the

country; we have in effect a provincial income tax rate of some 45.76

percent. The only province to have a lesser portion is Alberta. I note

that the rates range all the way up to 60 percent — the 60 percent,

most unfortunately, in Newfoundland. Clearly, British Columbia, with

this 45.76 percentage rate, is the second lowest in this nation. The

provincial tax rate, in fact, has risen this fiscal period from 44

percent, and it is anticipated that it is going to rise all the way to

48 percent next year. Even at that rate of 48 percent, it will remain

the second lowest tax rate in the country. As we all recognize, that

surtax is recommended to this House as a temporary measure. Hopefully

it will not have to be in place for very long.

I think it's important to note that as a resource-based economy we

have seen some very difficult times with this recession. Although

Alberta has traditionally been the province with the lowest tax rate,

both personal and sales tax, it is certainly feeling the difficulties

of the recession, and it may well be that we're going to find Alberta

contemplating tax increases and they are going to lose their place as

the lowest personal tax rate in Canada. I would think that with respect

to sales tax, they are blessed with having no sales tax. But again,

apart from three other provinces, B.C. has the lowest social sales tax

in the country.

We very simply have seen a tremendous amount of consolidation and

redirection over the past two years in the past three budgets. I think

it's fair to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the message should be loud and

clear by now that the gravy train

[ Page 3467 ]

is over. If one wishes to take a responsible role in our society, one must be prepared to contribute to our society.

Mr. Speaker, there were some derisive comments from members of the

opposition a little earlier that the program pertaining to encouraging

students to go out and solicit employment was tantamount to begging.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: No, hon. colleague, there is nothing wrong with

that. There is a program being put in place that will enable students

to do something positive, to do something progressive, and I certainly

don't think it's in order for the members on the opposition side of the

House to suggest that if an individual wants to get out and solicit

work and make sure he or she is contributing to this province.... That

should be only encouraged, not maligned.

MR. MITCHELL: Are you saying they're not doing that now?

[12:00]

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, the question from one of my learned

colleagues on the opposition side has questioned whether or not

students in British Columbia today are interested in moving forth in a

positive fashion and looking for employment. They are undoubtedly

looking for employment now. Many are finding it very difficult,

admittedly partially if not tremendously, due to the recessionary

times. But the point of the program is clearly that they are being

given encouragement by this government not only when we discuss

students but also when we start discussing the business sector. If, in

fact, the conclusion that this government has arrived at — and I am of

that opinion, to a tremendous degree supported by the population of

this province — that the course to resolve our economic times is by

encouraging the private sector to once again make this province

vibrant, then they should be taught and encouraged at a very early age

to consider how they can fit into the free enterprise system. For them

to think that they can just go to school, receive a degree and a job

will be presented to them is part of that now totally out-of-date

concept about the gravy train. The day of having the meal put on the

table for you is long gone. It's now time for everyone to recognize

that regardless of their position in life and regardless of their

education, they must show an intention and a desire to contribute in a

positive way.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure I'll have a further opportunity to speak on

this matter when we get back to the main motion, but suffice it to say

that I emphatically and vehemently speak in opposition to this

amendment. I look forward to further specific criticisms from the

opposition so that we may address them one by one.

MS. BROWN: I'm really pleased that at least in the last three

seconds of his speech the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam recognized

that we were debating the amendment, because certainly nothing that he

said prior to that showed any indication that he knew we weren't on the

main motion. However, he has established a precedent which I certainly

welcome, because it means I can be as wide-ranging as I want to be.

I want to respond to one statement he made about students. I'll deal

with the whole question of unemployment among young people in more

detail later. I am certainly going to see to it that copies of his

statement about the students are mailed out to every graduating student

in my area of Burnaby so that they can have an indication of what that

member thinks about their efforts. Not a summer vacation goes by that

there isn't a long stream of students coming through my office saying

that they have been looking for but have been unable to find any work,

and they are asking for assistance in terms of doing this. Students

have always had to work during the summer in order to help pay their

fees come fall. The problem they've been running into is that there

just have not been any jobs out there. To suggest that by simply going

around with a card saying, "Hi, I'm Bob," or "Hello, I'm Jane," is

suddenly going to change the situation is a little bit ludicrous on the

part of the government. That's all we're saying.

MR. PARKS: If you understood the free market system, you wouldn't say that, but I doubt if you've had the experience of looking for work.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, he's saying that if I understood the

free market system.... I can see what the free market system is doing

to the students in Burnaby, and I'm saying that if he thinks you can

solve that by handing them a little card saying "Hi, I'm Bob," or

"Hello, I'm Jane," then he doesn't understand the free market system

either. What those students want is work, Mr. Speaker. They're looking

for jobs, not for calling cards.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can't all be waiters at the Keg.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Even the Keg isn't hiring anybody

new. And those students have been out creating jobs. They've been

making their own work. In my own personal experience, last summer two

university students showed up, and they had a ladder and stuff and they

were window-cleaners. They created their own jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Good for them!

MS. BROWN: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hire them?

MS. BROWN: I certainly did. Students have been doing this

since the beginning of time. The problem we're running into is that

there are far more students and there are far more unemployed young

people than there are jobs, and the solution to their dilemma should

have been embodied in the budget, and it wasn't. It was because of the

failure of the budget to deal with the massive unemployment in this

province that the opposition moved the amendment I'm about to debate

now.

My colleague from Vancouver East pointed out that somewhere in the

neighbourhood of 63,000 jobs have been lost as a direct result of this

government's policies and actions. You add to that the number of people

who were unemployed and looking for work prior to that. We know for a

fact that as of January there were 208,000 people in this province

looking for work. What we have is a budget which is supposed to be

addressing itself to the needs of the people of this province, and yet

there is not one single mention of this government's commitment to

dealing with the problem of

[ Page 3468 ]

unemployment. Those 208,000 people have just been

dismissed without a word — not even a sentence saying, "We regret that

there are 208,000 people unemployed in this province," or "Our heart

weeps for the 208,000 people who are looking for work and unable to

find it," or "We are so sorry that we are continuing to eliminate jobs

at the rate at which we are." Not a word. Absolutely nothing. It's as

though those 208,000 people do not exist and have never existed —

certainly not in the consciousness of this government.

I want to do something that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Parks) did, and look at what this unemployment is doing to my

riding. I want to take a look at that and talk about it, because I

don't think that when the government ignores unemployment and the

unemployed it realizes that there is a human impact on the lives of

people involved in this.

I haven't got the specific figures just for Burnaby alone, but the

latest figures from the Unemployment Insurance Commission show that

something like 13.5 percent of the population of employable age are

drawing unemployment insurance — something in the neighbourhood, in the

lower mainland, of 101,000 people. Burnaby, of course, is part of that

overall figure.

The Canada Employment Centre in Burnaby says that as of January this

year it had 4,130 people registered, and this did not include people

who were on maternity or sick leave, or any other type of leave. These

are people registered and looking for work. Yet we have a budget that

does not mention one single word about unemployment. During the

election there was a lot of talk about unemployment. The member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) went up and down his riding, saying

that if ALRT came to Burnaby under a Social Credit government, it would

create 2,000 jobs in Burnaby. No one has seen one of those jobs yet.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: If you go to the job site, Mr. Speaker, and look

at the workers' cars parked by the side, they all have Alberta licence

plates on them. That's right! The rate of unemployment in Burnaby is

increasing, and these 2,000 phantom jobs never materialized. That great

promise: "Elect me and you'll get 2,000 jobs!" Not on your life. As a

matter of fact, there was an informational picket line around one of

the jobs where some of the workers were asking: "Why are all the jobs

going to out-of-province workers?" All of these promises and not a

mention in the budget.

I don't know how many other MLAs do it, but I have something we call an accountability session.

MR. REID: You need it too.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I do; that's the reason I have it. I recognize that

I have to be accountable to my constituents. Sure enough, a number of them showed

up last Sunday, and included in that number were some workers who said: "Mr.

Veitch promised that if ALRT went through under his government there would be

2,000 jobs for Burnaby workers. We would like you to find out from him where

those 2,000 jobs are, because they are certainly nowhere in evidence. Unemployment

in our community is on the increase." I indicated that I was sure the budget,

which was due to come down the following day, would have in it some job-creation

projects; that something in the budget would tell us that people were going

to be sent back to work. No such thing happened. Not a word. Not one single

sentence dealing with unemployment,

In June of last year a conference was held at Carleton University in

Ottawa, a countrywide poor people's lobby called by poor people's

organizations across Canada and sponsored by the Ottawa Council for

Low-Income Support Services, the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of

British Columbia and the Social Rights Steering Committee of Quebec.

One hundred and fifty representatives of groups came together,

representing thousands of people. They talked about ways in which their

poverty could be dealt with, and number two on their list — number one

was affordable housing — was jobs. They wanted jobs, training and

educational opportunities to foster a sense of dignity for all

Canadians. That's what they talked about. They didn't talk about

increases in welfare rates, nor did they ask for more handouts. They

talked about jobs. They want to work.

If you listen to the government benches you get the clear impression

that people don't want to work, and that the reason there was no

mention of unemployment is because people really like being unemployed.

All they really want to do is collect welfare or unemployment

insurance. That's not true. This was not a conference of social

workers, psychologists and welfare bureaucrats, but a conference of

poverty group representatives. The conference was funded by PLURA,

which is a collection of religious groups — the Presbyterian, Lutheran,

United, Roman Catholic and Anglican churches. They came together and

funded this conference, and poor people themselves sat down and drew up

their own agenda and list of what they wanted, and item number two was

jobs. That's what they wanted.

[12:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Yet we have in this province the worst situation ever in terms of

poverty. More people than ever in the history of this nation are

receiving welfare in this province, and we have a budget which does not

address itself to the number two request of this group, which is for

jobs. That's what they're asking for, Mr. Speaker, and that's the

reason the amendment has to say we cannot accept this budget, because

it doesn't address itself to what we are talking about.

When you look at the rate of bankruptcies in the constituency of

Burnaby-Edmonds, why are so many small businesses going under? They're

going under because people are unemployed. They have no money to buy

either the goods or the services which are provided by those small

entrepreneurs. So the government ends up hurting their own friends by

their policies. Nobody benefits from unemployment. And it really

confuses and baffles me that the government is too short-sighted to see

that. Now I know that the Minister of Human Resources knows it, because

in the press release which she issued the day that the budget came

down, after talking about penalizing young people who had to receive

income assistance, she said that when economic conditions were better,

the majority of clients moved off income assistance by their own

efforts. These were her own words. Not by government efforts or by

government handouts, but by their own efforts, she said — and within

four months.

Interjection.

[ Page 3469 ]

MS. BROWN: That's what the minister said.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you want to stop that?

MS. BROWN: No. I'm saying that the Minister of Human

Resources knows that when economic conditions are better, people don't

stay on income assistance. No one likes being on income assistance. You

don't live in the lap of luxury when you live on income assistance, and

so they get off as fast as they can. She went on: "The majority of our

clients are continuing to use income assistance for short-term need

while they pursue independence." Why didn't the government address

itself to the pursuit of the independence that these people on income

assistance are talking about, and that the Minister of Human Resources

is talking about? But the minister goes on to say: "But because of the

recession, it now takes longer for people to find employment — up to

eight months." She deals with that, of course, by saying that they're

going to extend the penalty period for people under the age of 26 who

need the short-term assistance up to eight months.

Whereas, before,

after four months they would be able to get full income assistance, now

they're going to get partial income assistance for up to eight months.

But even the Minister of Human Resources agrees that people want to

work, and that they are unable to find work because of economic

conditions — that's the term she uses — and recession. At the same

time, we are hearing a government bragging about creating unemployment,

about firing people, laying off workers, cutting services, shutting

down programs. Those programs and services didn't run themselves. When

you shut down a program and cut off a service, you lay people off; you

create unemployment. As the member for Vancouver East pointed out, it's

something in the neighbourhood of 63,000 jobs that this government has

deliberately eliminated, while at the same time we are hearing that

people need to become more independent and need to take more

responsibility for themselves. That's what they're desperately trying

to do.

The unemployment rate among young people is one that is particularly

devastating. First of all, they lack the opportunity to get the

experience they need, during the years that they are in school or

university, so that when they graduate and go out into the job market

to look for a job, they can say: "I've had this experience." That's one

of the major things that summer employment did for students. It allowed

them to build up experience in their areas of endeavour — in the field

of employment that they were going to be pursuing. They can't do that

anymore. The Minister of Human Resources used to hire students during

the summer as summer relief to work as financial aid workers and in

various and different.... My daughter worked as such a person when she

was a student. She used to work in the summer as a financial aid worker

so that when she graduated from university she would be able to say,

"I've had experience as a financial aid worker," when she goes to apply

for a job. That's not possible anymore. The government is not only not

hiring students as summer relief but, as you know, in Human Resources

they're firing them left, right and centre — something in the

neighbourhood of 600 in one fell swoop. So what we find are these young

people graduating in a tough job market, applying for jobs without any

experience. They're told: "We can't afford to hire you. You have no

experience." So that's one liability they take with them into the job

market. That should be so simple and straightforward a thing that you

would believe the government would be able to understand that, but

that's not the case. So there is no summer employment.

They graduate from high school and there is no employment. There is

none. There are no ads in the newspaper that say: "Wanted: young person

willing to learn." There is no such thing anymore. When there is an ad

for one job you can be sure that the line-up of people applying for it

is in the neighbourhood of 100 or more. Look at the experience when

Dynatek ran an ad in Victoria. The line-up went around the block —

people desperately wanting to work. With young people it's even more

important, because they have to learn to work. They have to learn the

discipline of having to be on the job at a certain hour. of being able

to be productive while they're on the job. That kind of discipline you

don't get from a textbook. You pick that up from having the work

experience. That's very important for them to have. They're being

deprived of that. Young people are giving up hope, having tried for a

year and in some instances two years to find a job, and have decided

that they can't be bothered to look anymore. The only offer that they

get from the government is a card. Now they can go around with a card

with their name on it. To what avail? There are no jobs out there. What

we really needed from the government in the budget was a statement

about job creation.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: It is because I'm being positive that I'm speaking

about young people. If I weren't being positive I wouldn't care. It is

because I am being positive that I care about young people.

Mr. Speaker, a research group presented to the MacDonald commission

a statement about the labour market and youth, and they talked about

the failure to fully use the talents of our people and how expensive

that was in real terms — in terms of our nation's development. I don't

think that comment is more true anywhere else than in talking about

young people. The failure to use their energy, their talents and their

abilities is going to hurt all of us in the long run. It's shortsighted

on the part of the government not to be able to see that. They should

be moving heaven and earth — turning things around — to see to it that

there are jobs out there and that our young people can work and can

make a positive contribution to the whole quality of life in this

province as well as in this country. Instead, what we have is a

decision which would indicate, as a press statement yesterday from the

Federated Anti-Poverty Groups stated, that the government is beginning

to look at people as the undeserving poor. That's what that decision to

penalize anyone unemployed under the age of 26 says. The government

makes a decision based on whether you deserve assistance or you don't.

What the government is stating by its action is that young and

able-bodied people are undeserving of assistance even though they're

unemployed through no fault of their own and even though their energy

and their talents are being wasted.

The other group of unemployed people I would like to talk about are

women. To give you some statistics to start with, in January the

statistic that came out of the ministry's information was that there

were 81,000 women in this province who were looking for employment and

were unable to find it. That's an increase of 14,000 over December

1983. As everyone knows, usually during December, when one anticipates

that there is going to be a Christmas rush, employment picks up a bit.

Then, of course, in January it all falls

[ Page 3470 ]

down. So there are 81,000 women wanting to work,

with energy and with talent, wanting to contribute in a positive way,

and they are unable to do so. The unemployment rate in this province

for women aged 15 to 24 is something in the neighbourhood of 12.3

percent: that is, out of every 100 there are close to 13 women who want

to work and who can't do so. It is higher among single women. Imagine

that! That ties in with the whole statement I made earlier about youth.

It's higher among single women than it is among married women.

Another area they looked at.... When we tried to break it down in

terms of what happens to these women, we found that there was a direct

link between the unemployment of these women.... When you tie that to

the cutbacks in the services which they need to get into the job

market, it really condemns them to a life of poverty. At the same time

as the jobs weren't there, the government was also cutting back on

training programs. Did you know that? There were cuts in the training

programs which were being introduced to get women into

"non-traditional" jobs — that means jobs out of the female ghetto, jobs

that paid better than the traditional female ghetto job. For women who

had left the labour market for some years to raise a family and wanted

to come back, the funding for retraining was cut too. So the avenue

that women would be using to get independence, so they would not be so

dependent on income assistance, so that we would have in this province

a phenomenon which didn't show that most of the people on welfare were

women and their children....

That avenue is being shut at the same time. So we have not double

jeopardy but triple jeopardy: we have no jobs and no training, and we

have cutbacks in services and social assistance. Women are being

punished on all levels at the same time. What does that tell you about

the government's appreciation of 51 percent of the human beings who

live in this province, when it would visit that kind of triple jeopardy

on them?

[12:30]

There is a report put out by the Canadian Mental Health Association.

The Canadian Mental Health Association believes there is some

relationship between unemployment and health — physical health as well

as mental health. Research has been done in that area. It talks about

the impact of unemployment on body and soul. I just received my 1984

copy yesterday. It has an

article which says: "Why don't we hear more

about female workers and their responses to unemployment? Are women

really acknowledged as workers, either as unpaid workers in the home or

as paid workers in the labour force?" When all of the research is being

done, it's always as though women as workers do not exist, so it's very

difficult to get any information about them. The

article goes on: "This

blind spot is troubling, given that women comprise 40 percent of the

labour force and represent 45 percent of unemployed persons and given

that 49 percent of married women are employed or looking for work and

that 63 percent of single women are either employed or looking for

work."

Single women have the highest unemployed rate among female workers. It says:

"Women seek employment for the same reasons that men do — for money, human

contact, independence, prestige, personal enhancement and so on. Paid workers,

a badge of membership in adult society...and when adults are not employed,

they are treated as citizens of lesser value." We saw that. The budget

certainly did that. The Ministry of Human Resources with its new edict about

the penalty for unemployed people under the age of 26 is treating them as citizens

of lesser value. They are being treated as dependents. Certainly we have every

indication that this statement is correct from our own experience.

It goes on:

"While women may achieve many of their personal goals

through relationships and friends they, nonetheless, meet other goals

through their paid work. Thus when job loss strikes, their reactions

presumably reverberate throughout the self and family in much the same

way as they do for male workers. A growing percentage of Canadian women

are sole support parents. Many are single and self-supporting, and many

married women contribute substantially to the family's maintenance."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The mental health report went on to talk about the symptoms that

showed up in these unemployed women after unemployment extended over a

long period of time. Depression was the number one symptom that they

dealt with. They talked about the risk factors associated with this. If

you go to other research and look at the use of tranquilizers and

prescription drugs, you find that the heaviest users are women. What

happens is that if you go to a doctor and you're a woman and you're

depressed, you are given a prescription for Valium. If you go to a

doctor and you're depressed and you're a man, you are told to go out

and jog and do some exercise to do something positive with your body.

But that's not the way women are treated. What the Canadian Mental

Health Association found was a marked increase in depression among both

married and unmarried women who were unemployed. There was a direct

link, they found, between their depression and their unemployment. The

researchers asked the questions and found that number one was the

women's own unemployment, number two was the unemployment of their

spouse — those were the two top causes of women's depression — and then

they went on to talk about poor marriages and other reasons for this

depression.

The report went on to talk about the fact that women who lose their

jobs during periods of economic recession were more likely to be

squeezed out of the job market altogether. How many of the public

sector workers who have lost their employment as a direct result of

government action are ever going to get back into the labour force if,

say, they're over 40 or 50 years of age? It's very difficult. But if

you're a woman, it's even more difficult. That's recognized by the fact

that governments often move to make pension plans and welfare payments

adjustable at an earlier rate to women than to men. They recognize that

it's more difficult for women to get back into the labour force, once

they have been squeezed out of it, than it is for men.

The report goes on to say that to date very few studies have asked

questions about the human impact of unemployment on women workers, and

that it's about time that question was raised. When you look at the

program of layoffs that the government has in the fields of human

resources, social work or their clerical components, there are a number

of women in those areas who are within the age group for which it is

almost impossible to find employment; yet no study was done of the

impact of unemployment on them.

They talk about social stress — again, this is the Canadian Mental

Health Association — and the direct result of unemployment. What they

found in these women's families

[ Page

3471 ]

was family fragmentation, social alienation and a

sense of powerlessness. Those were the kinds of reasons, the

components, that went together to result in their depression; also in

the high incidence of violent behaviour that those women had to contend

with in their families, whether spouse abuse, child abuse, suicide or

homicide. Mr. Speaker, I know that you know that all those forms of

abuse are on the increase. All of those forms of abuse have a history

of increasing during a period of high unemployment. For those reasons,

one would have thought that in its budget the government would have

moved to address the whole idea of creating jobs, because of the

spinoff, the real impact of unemployment on people and on their lives.

But there was not a word in the budget — no commitments whatsoever made

to that.

It talks about the high incidence of mental illness among this

particular group of our society. Again, I'm talking about women who are

unemployed for a long period of time. Do you know what the government

does at the same time as we're having an increase in violence within

the family, which can be linked to high unemployment? The government

moves to terminate services like child abuse services. The government

moves to privatize services like the Vancouver Transition House.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What's wrong with that?

MS. BROWN: The first member for Surrey asks what's wrong with

privatizing a transition house, which clearly indicates that the member

doesn't recognize that protecting women against violent abuse in the

home has to be one of society's responsibilities to the women, not

something that should be left to the private sector. In the same way

that we recognize that health care and education should not be left

entirely to the private sector, we should recognize that protecting

children and women from violence in the home is not something that

should be left to the private sector. The government cannot even come

to grips with that very simple concept. However, Mr. Speaker, at the

same time as the Canadian Mental Health Association is finding an

increase in violence and violent behaviour, an increase in child abuse

and incest, an increase in suicide and homicide, we have the government

— and these are....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's not my doom. That's the Canadian Mental

Health Association's doom. That's all your doing because the Canadian

Mental Health Association....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I have been dealing with the same cruel,

vindictive government for seven years, and you will hear the same

speech as long as I have to deal with the same cruel, vindictive

government. I am not alone in that position, because I am quoting from

the Canadian Mental Health Association. These are not my original

ideas. Thank you.

You are suggesting that I have two minutes to go, Mr. Speaker. I really regret

that, because I wanted to bring to the attention of the House what is happening

to Salmon Arm, which is trying to find funding for a transition house to deal

with the battered women in that particular constituency. The letters that they

have written to their MLA, and the responses which they have received from him

at a time when the Canadian Mental Health Association is talking about the increase

in violence.... A group of women in Salmon Arm have come together and tried

to form a transition house to deal with that violence, and it has not been able

to get any kind of financial assistance whatsoever from the government. Certainly

they have no support from their own MLA.

At the same time, there are preschoolers in the Shuswap area who

need special facilities because they are special-need kids — no

assistance from their MLA, no assistance from the government.

MR. SEGARTY: That letter is three years old. That's when the old MLA, your new leader, was there.

MS. BROWN: This letter is dated December 1983, and the letter

from Salmon Arm is even later than that, in terms of funding for their

transition house.

I'm sorry that the minister responsible for universities isn't here,

because he's certainly observing restraint, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to

congratulate him, because he sent a letter to the Registered Nurses'

Association saying: "Dear Sir: Please be advised that due to the

current restraint program...I would like to be cancelled from your

mailing list for the magazine BCNU Report ." The only problem is that he was receiving the magazine free. That's the extent of his restraint.

I'm speaking in support of the amendment to censure this government for not dealing with the real unemployment in this province.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It gives me great pleasure to rise in

debate in this House in defence of the budget and to speak against this

silly and frivolous motion by the opposition,

I wish to cover several topics and address some of the comments made

from the other side of the House. I wish to talk about employment, and

I want to talk about privatization and some of the myths that are

perpetrated from the other side, especially by the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I'm glad that he's in his seat right now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, you can run away, because I'll be back Monday to talk about some of the subjects that you addressed, Mr. Member.

I want to talk about some of the very positive things that have been

done by this government to create employment and I want to talk about a

few things going on in my constituency. But because of the lateness of

the hour I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of

the House.

Motion approved.

[12:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the afternoon sitting yesterday

the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) rose on a

matter of privilege relating to the office of the ombudsman. I have

examined the Blues, and as I understand it, the hon. member has

suggested that the ombudsman has attempted to mislead the House. In

support of this allegation he quotes a press report which attributes

certain words to the ombudsman.

[ Page 3472 ]

It has been stated many times in this House that a charge of breach

of privilege or contempt is a serious matter and should only be

embarked upon by an hon. member after most careful consideration. There

may be, in some cases, legitimate matters of privilege which can never

be dealt with by this Legislature by virtue of the fact that the member

raising the matter failed to observe the traditional and necessary

forms.

In this instance the Chair is unable to comment on the substance of the hon.

member's matter of privilege for two obvious reasons: (1) he has failed

to table a copy of the offending article, which is a basic requirement; and

(2) the hon. member has also failed to present the Chair with a copy of the

motion he would propose to move should a prima facie matter of privilege be

found to exist. I refer all hon. members to two decisions of this House dealing

with the same issues and recorded in the 1982 Journals , pages 142 and 174. Therefore,

hon. members, the motion must fail.

Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:47 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada