[ Page 2893 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Provincial participation in Nishga land claims negotiations. Mr. Passarell –– 2893

Transportation for school children. Mrs. Wallace –– 2893

Pornographic film-making in Victoria. Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 2895

Sabotage at Riverview Hospital. Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 2895

Lien Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 2895

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 65 –– 2895

Hon. Mr. Gardom

An Act To Provide No-Smoking Areas In Public Places (Bill M205). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2895

An Act To Provide For Adequate Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance (Bill M206). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2895

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 23).

Third reading –– 2896

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 65 –– 2896

Mr. Blencoe

On vote 66 –– 2896

Mr. Blencoe

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 61 –– 2897

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Blencoe

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 31 –– 2906

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lockstead

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

On vote 49 –– 2911

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Barnes

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1983

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN
NISHGA LAND CLAIMS NEGOTIATIONS

MR. PASSARELL: There are very few of them over there, Mr. Speaker –– I was going to ask the Premier a question, but he's not here, so I'll put my question to the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here either.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I'll try for three now. I'll put my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, since this is a federal-provincial matter. Mr. Robert Exell, coordinator of native Indian programs, advised the Nishga in September that he had not been instructed to attend the Nishga land claims negotiations with the federal negotiator, and that he had no minister from whom to seek instructions. The question to you, Mr. Minister, is: will you advise why the province of British Columbia failed to give such instructions to Mr. Exell, and why no provincial representative attended the September negotiations?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In answer to the member for Atlin's question, Mr. Speaker, that question should be properly addressed to my colleague, the Attorney-General, and on his behalf I shall take the question as notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Attorney-General is coming through the door.

MR. PASSARELL: Come on, hurry up and get in here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PASSARELL: A new question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him the old one. Repeat it.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay, I'll go back over it. Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations took it on notice, I will state it to the Attorney-General. Mr. Robert Exell, coordinator of native programs, advised the Nishga in September that he had not been instructed to attend the Nishga land claims negotiations, and that he had no minister from whom to seek instructions. The question is: will the Attorney-General advise why the province of British Columbia failed to give such instructions to Mr. Exell, and why no provincial representative attended the September negotiations?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know whether this member is aware that since March 1976, 25 meetings have been held between the band, the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia, and that a representative of the government of British Columbia has chaired four of the last five of those meetings. I don't know that this member is aware of that: the position he has put here in this question suggests a lack of interest on the part of this government in native matters. This government, Mr. Speaker, has been in the forefront nationally, in making representations on native matters. It also pioneered in this country the progressive settlement of the Fort Nelson Indian band claims in the field of natural gas, which are a model across this country. I will take the rest of this question as notice.

MR. PASSARELL: Maybe if you give me $20 I won't ask the questions any more.

I have a question to the Premier. The Nishga have requested the Premier to advise whether Mr. Exell will be attending the October 25 and 26 negotiations. The question to the Premier is: has the government decided to send a representative to these very important land claims negotiation meetings?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice.

MR. PASSARELL: My last question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: will the Premier advise what instructions have been given to Mr. Exell regarding participation in the Nishga land claims negotiations?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have taken the question as notice. As the Attorney-General, in conjunction with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, will be handling this for the government, I think it would be inappropriate for me to respond to that question.

TRANSPORTATION FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. The minister is aware of a serious danger to children crossing the Island Highway in the Cowichan School District, and the minister has told local parents that the revised transportation allowance would be available by October 15. In view of the fact that this date has now passed and conflicting information is coming from the minister's office and his department on a new date, will the minister advise when this situation will be resolved?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the serious accident which did occur to a young lad on the road between Shawnigan and Cobble Hill. This particular accident has given rise to considerable concern among parents in the area. I advised the member as well as some of her constituents that the matter of transportation allowances was under considerable review. As a matter of fact, a bulletin has been issued to all school districts in British Columbia with respect to transportation allowances, using the previous year's actual costs. That bulletin was issued on Friday, October 7, and the school district is very much aware of it.

I've also requested, as a result of this particular incident, that someone in my ministry contact School District 65 with respect to the accident which occurred. I can assure you that it did occur within a distance of two miles of the school. I don't think that we need go into the details of it at this time, but it certainly was well within the three-mile radius. The last point that I would like to make on this is that the member well knows — and we have had this discussion on more than one occasion — that the autonomy of the school district must be preserved....

[ Page 2894 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm serious about this. Because this particular incident involved transportation, it is the school district which must make a decision about transporting children within that distance if they so wish. I don't think that, as a result of a decision which the school district made which some of the residents are not happy with, they can immediately proceed to the provincial government and ask the provincial government to intervene in the affairs of the district, particularly on a matter like this.

MRS. WALLACE: That's all very interesting, and as the minister says, we've had that all before. Maybe the minister would now listen to the question. He apparently told the parents that he would have this transportation reallocation finished by October 15. He told me that it would be ready by October 31 or November 1, and now his ministry is telling me that it won't be ready till November 15. My question was: when is he going to have this information available?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the information was released to all school boards in British Columbia, I believe, on Friday, October 7. At that time we advised them in a bulletin where there were 17 other items as well as the one on transportation — the statement which was made as a matter of policy; that is, that the transportation costs incurred by each school district in the province would be based on the previous year's costs. That information has been communicated to all districts, and I made the additional effort to ensure that someone in the ministry communicated that information directly to School District 65.

MRS. WALLACE: I assume he's talking about information circular no. 15. Is that correct?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can't remember the number.

MRS. WALLACE: It talks about the regular bus transportation and says: "This will require districts to negotiate annually transportation budgets with the school facilities division, and guidelines will be published shortly."

What I'm asking is: what is the status of the negotiations and the guidelines? When are the parents of these kids going to know whether or not the kids are going to have transportation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, we have advised the school district that for the transportation budget which they are to prepare for the next fiscal year, being a calendar year in the case of school districts, they are to use the transportation figures from the previous year. What the member is really getting at is a matter of policy of School District 65 with respect to transportation of children within the three-mile radius. That is a policy which has been established. If the school district wishes, on its own, to provide that transportation within the three-mile radius, then that's up to that school district and up to the parents to make their case to that board. It's not for the province of British Columbia to make a decision with respect to transportation within the three-mile distance.

MRS. WALLACE: Does the minister not agree that children have the right to be transported to school without undue danger?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Certainly I agree with the statement made by the member. But we also have an additional problem, and that applies throughout British Columbia. Yes, I recognize the concern of the member with respect to children crossing the major highway travelling up-Island. I recognize that fact; the school district recognizes that fact. When the original budgets came out, those matters were not taken into consideration. The framework was revised. If they rely upon the money spent in the existing year.... That is entirely up to the board, and how the board wishes to allocate those funds is entirely up to them. Surely the school board must take some responsibility for the use of those funds and how they want to allocate them. That's exactly the onus that has been placed upon them. They are answerable to the citizens whom they serve.

MRS. WALLACE: Inasmuch as funding was provided for those children to be transported last year, are you telling me that you have now revised the budget for Cowichan to allow extra funds — more than they were getting previously so that they can be transported if the board so desires?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are no additional funds provided for the specific transport of children in School District 65, particularly in the area to which the member refers — no additional funds for that district or for any other school district of the province. The decision of School District 65 was to transport the children who resided within the three-mile radius. That was their decision. They allocated funds and were prepared to do it. Interestingly enough, as I recall going back into the fiscal framework for School District 65, it seems to me that they are to receive something like 101 percent of the actual 1983 budget. It's really a reasonably well-managed school district, and I must mention that. What the member is looking for is a preferred benefit for children within School District 65, whereas I can look to a number of school districts in the province where the climate is much rougher and the transportation and highway problems are identical. I cannot turn around and ask for a specific benefit to be bestowed upon School District 65. The school district can do it, and I have discussed this with the member on a number of occasions.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are two guests: Mrs. Barbara McNair, visiting from London, England, and Louise Pelton, wife of our distinguished Dewdney MLA. Would you please make them welcome?

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, and for clarification, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday or the day before I brought to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) a rent increase in Vancouver of 112 percent. He stated there was no such rent increase for 1185 Haro

[ Page 2895 ]

Street. I would like to table the notice of rent increase for 1185 Haro Street, signed by the landlord, for 112 percent.

MR. SPEAKER: The member asks leave for tabling.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to answer questions taken as notice earlier in the session.

Leave granted.

PORNOGRAPHIC FILM-MAKING IN VICTORIA

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) asked what steps had been taken to investigate pornographic film-making in Victoria. I wish to assure the member that that report is under active investigation by the Victoria police department. The investigation is proceeding well, and I cannot comment further.

ASSAULT OF MIGRANT WORKERS

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds also asked me a question about an alleged assault on three migrant farmworkers and a child in the vicinity of Keremeos. The RCMP have charged four individuals in connection with that incident. There have also been four other incidents in the Okanagan known to the police. Charges were laid in three of the cases; in the fourth the individual who claimed to have been assaulted left the province and no charges were laid.

SABOTAGE AT RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

HON. MR. SMITH: Finally, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) asked me a question concerning the damage done to the laundry facilities at Riverview Hospital. There was $100,000 worth of damage. I'm able to report that the RCMP have concluded an investigation into the matter and found no physical evidence at the scene and no direct evidence leading to the laying of any criminal charges as a result of personal interviews. That investigation has been concluded at the present moment.

I will also file an answer to question 46 on the order paper put to me by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Introduction of Bills

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1983.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would ask for leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. HOWARD: With respect, I think the House Leader should ask leave to proceed to the item first on that subject matter, namely public bills in the hands of private members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I asked leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Somewhere along the line we have begun a debate. All that was asked for initially was leave. Shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear a no, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 65: operations and administration, $9,349,891.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M205.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE
NO-SMOKING AREAS IN PUBLIC PLACES

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M206.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE
MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY INSURANCE

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2896 ]

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 23 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 11

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 65: operations and administration, $9,349,891.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment for lunch this afternoon I was asking the minister to clarify something. Perhaps he's got the information before him now. Under vote 65-1.4, policy and research, there is a major shift in policy, with a 50 percent cut in financing. He said it was for financial reviews, yet under financial services there is a 24 percent cut as well. I am wondering if the minister could give us some more detail about it. He said it was consulting; I would like to know what kind of consulting and those sorts of things.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I've had the time to dig out some of the details. First of all, I would like to advise the member that the figure of $434,824 was an estimated figure for 1982-83; however, the actual expenditure was $305,000 so the reduction isn't so great.

Financial consulting had to do with the cost of various programs. For instance, Mr. Chairman, it was considered that we should do a study of the downtown revitalization program and have it evaluated. There was an amount for a property tax review committee report. Restructure studies is another area where there has been considerable money spent. It was the decision of the ministry that we should look into the cost of that and the value of it. Fiscal study is another one. It was considered that we should look into the value of ministry communications policy. That's some of a number of programs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the member should know that while we didn't spend these dollars, we did carry out some of the studies, but we did it in-house. Therefore there was no need to spend the money on consulting fees.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, under 65-2.6, there is approximately an 11 percent cut in funding for the Islands Trust. Perhaps the minister can clarify that and give us the details.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The difference there, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member, is the result of a change in salaries because of some changes of staff within that particular group.

MR. BLENCOE: Staff reduction?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not staff reduction, but change of positions.

MR. BLENCOE: One very quick one, and then we will leave this one and we can carry the vote on, unless someone else wants to speak, Mr. Chairman. The building standards branch is an important branch in terms of advice to municipalities on handicapped access and this sort of thing. You are showing a fairly substantial reduction, according to my figures, of 33 percent. Perhaps you could give us some details on that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We had anticipated spending more money in here, Mr. Chairman, in looking at the buildings standards act. It was considered that we could have some expense in that regard. That wasn't proclaimed, and therefore there was no need for that expenditure.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll accept that, except that I would hope the minister will be careful with that particular branch — building standards particularly. The advice has been given to the municipalities, and cities and towns are now looking at the handicapped. That's the one area that I'm familiar with; I used it, and the staff they have there are excellent and provided really good background for me and for our city. I just hope that kind of support and advice won't be eliminated. I have no other questions under this particular vote.

Vote 65 approved.

On vote 66: municipal revenue-sharing, $210,000,000.

MR. BLENCOE: This, of course, is a very important one. Revenue-sharing is always a bone of contention or concern for local government. I don't intend to spend much time on it; I've already expressed my view and our party has in terms of what we perceive to be a shift in terms of revenue-sharing for local government. I would just like to get some clarification from the minister. Last year there was $235 million in revenue-sharing and this year there will be an allocation of $210 million — about a 12 percent shift, I believe, at this time anyway. Mr. Minister, do you anticipate that there will be any further reduction in revenue-sharing?

[ Page 2897 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We can't predict exactly what the figure will be at this moment. I can only give the member my assurance that we are endeavouring to provide as close to last year's amount as we can. I expect that the decision on that will be made within a matter of days.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the decision on total revenue be made in a matter of days?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No. On the unconditional portion, which is the portion that is in question at the moment.

MR. BLENCOE: There is not much more to be said about this, except to reiterate that municipalities are very much in a delicate position in terms of their financial arrangements. I hope the minister can indicate to them, as early as possible, exactly what their position is going to be. I know last year and the year before, for instance, we were doing our budgets for many months, but we had this unknown which really made it difficult to come to terms with our budgets and what we were doing, because we never quite knew what the province was going to do. They left it and kept putting it off, and it wasn't until the end of our process that we knew from the province what was going to happen. It does play havoc with municipal operations in trying to come to terms with their budgets. Can the minister indicate that that's a process he wants to try to improve, and that this year we're going to have full information much earlier than usual? Is that possible?

[2:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, in my address at the UBCM I did commit myself to providing this information as early as possible, and certainly earlier than has been the practice in the past. I had hoped to have it out by this date; however that has been impossible, simply because we haven't had the final figures with us. But understanding the importance of having early information at the municipal level as they move into doing the budgeting for next year, I fully appreciate the value of it. I really and truly expect that I should have that information to them by next week, hopefully early in the week.

Vote 66 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 61: minister's office, $176,639.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments, and perhaps abbreviate what I had prepared. I am certainly pleased to be able to present the estimates of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing for the 1983-84 fiscal year.

As everyone knows, the economic restraints now facing the province and the rest of the country have, as with all of the ministries of the provincial government, presented my ministry with a very formidable challenge and many difficult decisions in its preparation to meet the needs of the coming year. My ministry has made a strong commitment — and I'm just going to touch on some of the areas here — to the parks system, and I am pleased to be able to report that despite the tough economic times, we have been able to secure a little bit of additional funds this year to improve our level of capital maintenance in a number of parks throughout the province.

In the years to come the ministry will continue its efforts to achieve the greatest possible efficiency in the disposition of Crown land in British Columbia. Ministry programs will be based on the principle that pricing of Crown land will remain comparable to the private sector land market, and will not influence the cost of adjacent private lands. Automation in the Crown land information system will considerably shorten the time factor in providing information in the process of land disposition, and will be speeded up by the provision for legal surveys by the ministry for most Crown land being prepared for marketing. I might say that a great deal of effort has been made in the last year or 14 months by me and senior members of my ministry to speed up the land disposition and applications and to simplify the process.

In the matter of housing, the government is committed to encouraging the private sector to provide the wide range of housing required by British Columbians throughout the province, with a minimum of government intervention. I can report, with some pleasure, that the outlook for those seeking to purchase a home, and for those in the housing construction industry, has improved significantly during the past year, and there are strong indications that this will continue into the year ahead.

I would like to comment on the British Columbia home program, which was introduced in September 1982 and has so far assisted nearly 53,000 British Columbian homeowners to cope with the burden of mortgage interest rates. This program provided assurance and confidence at a time when it was needed most by people who were purchasing or seeking to purchase a home of their own. It should not be overlooked that some $70 million has so far gone into the economy to allow people to spend it and, in effect, borrow it interest-free from the government to help them through those difficult high-interest times. It's also worthy of note that when we introduced the B.C. home program, the figures of what it might cost over the three- to four-year period were quite high, but with the dropping interest rates.... Of course, those projections were the worst-possible-scenario projections; in other words, interest rates would have had to stay above 18 percent, and they have not, so therefore we have not been forced to raise nearly the amount of money that we gave as the worst scenario at that time.

One other area that we're involved in very heavily is the provincial government's commitment to provide Crown land for residential development. This remains unchanged, and such major land developments as Riverview Heights and the Westwood Plateau project in Coquitlam — among other smaller ones in various parts of the province — are certainly significant milestones in that area.

As always, Mr. Chairman, the government has remained firmly committed to the principle of adequate housing for our senior citizens in all areas of the province. I recently announced that my ministry will provide assistance for an additional 600 housing units for senior citizens, with an emphasis on small communities where there are no alternatives in the private housing market. We have a commitment to the seniors. Of course, in these times we have some difficulty, so we tried to target the homes for seniors into the areas that don't have alternatives. I might point out, too, that we have had some great success in lowering the end price of units through a proposal-call system, rather than a construction system and supervision as we did before. We have had some

[ Page 2898 ]

remarkable successes in that line. I might point out that these 600 units will add to the 18,570 units and 393 projects which already exist across the province. So our contribution to the seniors' housing projects has certainly not been insignificant.

In addition, this spring we announced an extra effort to provide funding for housing units for the disabled in all areas of British Columbia. This is in addition to the 300 units that have been provided over the last two or three years, with particular emphasis during the Year of the Disabled. But in this coming year, of course, we're allowing for 230 additional units. I should recognize also, at this time, the contribution of those community organizations that apply for these facilities and, in effect, make them possible. As with the seniors' projects, we have many organizations that take the lead role; we assist them financially and technically to bring about better housing for the citizens in their communities.

Just to get back to our parks system, the 368 parks in the provincial system attracted over 15 million people. A recent survey of the park-going habits of British Columbians revealed that the majority have a high opinion of the scenic beauty of our parks and visit parks throughout the system repeatedly. With this in mind, of course, we continue our commitment to our provincial parks system and to the preservation of some of the many beautiful scenic areas in the province. As members probably realize, two major new parks were created last year: the world-famous Valhalla Park and the Mount Terry Fox Park, named to honour the heroic British Columbian who came to mean so much to so many people.

My ministry also provided assistance to local governments through the provision of free Crown land for parks and recreational facilities in all areas of the province. In addition to approximately $1.2 million granted to 22 communities and regional district authorities, Crown land grants totalling 334 hectares, worth approximately $3.5 million, were made to 19 municipalities for local parks, and approximately $70,000 was given to 13 non-profit groups to assist projects ranging from trail construction to wilderness survival courses.

We've worked in coordination with some of the other programs — the NEED program, the job action programs and so on — with our staff as supervision, to provide many other facilities from whatever funds were available.

I present these estimates with the confidence that the challenges facing us in the year ahead will be met and overcome, and that despite the difficulties of these times, the high standards set by this ministry in past years will be maintained.

I would like to comment briefly on a couple of the more pleasant experiences that I've had during the year. I visited Fort Steele. I had visited it in its early stages long before I came to government. I saw how much more has been done there, what a wonderful attraction it is to the province as a tourist facility and what a heritage it is for the people of this province in historic terms. I was also fortunate to be at Barkerville in June. I would strongly recommend that any British Columbian who has not gone to Barkerville and spent a couple of days there is really missing a wonderful experience, because it is history brought alive. It is mentioned in the new edition of Encyclopedia Britannica as probably the most authentic historic reconstruction in western North America, if not in all of North America. In addition to some openings of senior citizen projects and other facilities that we are involved in, there are a couple of the experiences that I wish all British Columbias could share in — economically. They would be a worthwhile experience for anyone, and if they have children, take them along, because there is something for everyone.

I would like to commend the members of my senior staff in Victoria and our people out in the field who carry out the programs that we discuss here and make British Columbia a better place for people to live in. I would like to acknowledge their efforts and also the efforts of the many volunteers and organizations that help us to bring a better way of life to British Columbians.

MR. MITCHELL: I have taken over the role as parks critic for this particular minister. I have not had the opportunity to travel around to all the parks, because I inherited this position late in the session.

I think when we review what has happened in this particular session, we have to go back to what has happened to our park system over the last three years. Let's be very honest. The province of British Columbia, going back over 30 years or more, has built up one of the finest park systems in North America. There was a program that not only developed a better standard of parks in areas that were easily accessible but designed a program to open up areas throughout British Columbia that had never been serviced by any type of facility for the citizens of our province. This was a program that developed over many years, through three major administrations — or four if you go back to when it started under the coalition government. It was carried on under the first Social Credit government, expanded under the NDP government, and for the first few years after 1976 it was supported by the present Social Credit government. Not only did they build parks, but they built a group within the public service that became specialists in laying out facilities and designing a way of life for British Columbians and tourists to enjoy the wilderness of our province.

I think through those years what had happened was that the people of this province and the tourists who came because of the publicity of the tourism and parks branches came to accept a high standard of parks. I am one who, with my family, has travelled through many of the parks throughout the province, up through your riding of Prince George and down to Terrace and Lakelse. In fact, I got there just after the first park was wiped out by a landslide. I do know a few of the parks. I also know, as one person who shared the ideas of the majority of citizens of B.C., that the parks branch was providing an excellent service and top-grade accommodation.

[3:00]

But in the last three years there has been a purposely designed program within the government to cut back from the standards of park facilities that the people believed they had a right to enjoy. I think it all started when they put in the safe where you can put your licence number in and you put in your money for that particular night's stay in the park. When they started that, they took out of the park someone who was there patrolling the surroundings. As an individual I'm bringing to the minister the concerns of many families who travel the wilderness areas of British Columbia. They travel those areas, in many cases alone in their own cars or campers, and they're going into an area where they are unsure of who's living next to them, who's staying in the camp, and they are kind of isolated. It was always a certain amount of assurance that if you had a regular park attendant in the park 24 hours a day, you knew that there was going to be a certain amount of patrol, a certain amount of policing, and that there wouldn't

[ Page 2899 ]

be what has happened in so many parks over the last three years: an awful lot of vandalism, a lot of parties, a lot of terror that has been given to families who are new in an area. I know from talking to so many of my constituents, and so many letters that I've got in a short period of time, that the lack of full patrols in the parks has been occurring over the last three years. With the economic problems we have in this area with a lot of unemployment, the citizens of this province cannot afford it and they do not want it.

It's too bad that we're in this cut-and-run attitude that we have in British Columbia today. Services that the province has been able to afford in the past are being cut under the guise of so-called restraint. I think the minister is being very derelict in his duty when he doesn't fight harder and stronger within his ministry to build up the patrols that should have continued in the parks, to get away from putting the money in a box and having someone come around the next morning to pick it up. We can't afford that lack of security in the park system.

I say this in all sincerity. When you look at the parks, they are not just some frill that citizens of this province enjoy, but the park system that has been built up has been a stimulus to the economy in so many ways. For those of us who have got the camping bug.... You know, we go out every year and buy a little more new equipment, another sleeping-bag, another tent, and we move up through that into the tent-trailers. Then we get into trucks and campers. But every one of these purchases made by the 15 million people — using the statistics presented by the minister — who travel throughout our parks.... They are purchasing goods and services from all over the community, all over the province. Those parks do stimulate the economy. They stimulate all types of business.

When you look at the parks throughout this province, the parks branch has gone into areas that were never serviced. They attracted people from all over North America to go to those areas. Because of the promotion from the tourism industry, and from word of mouth of other people who have travelled that route, the popularity of various parks grew and grew. There was in many cases a need for additional parks. This overflow was taken up by the private campsites. As one who has also been forced to take a port in a storm, I have used some of the private campsites. I have found that when you compare the standards of the majority of the private campsites with the facilities and services provided by the parks branch, there is no comparison. It's like moving from an apartment to a refugee camp. When it's 7 o'clock at night and you can't find a place to park your tent or trailer, you'll go in anywhere, even to the refugee camps with the other people who are suffering the same problem as you are for not stopping at 3 o'clock, even when your wife told you you should have. You go in there and you're happy.

But what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that these refugee camps — the private campsites — are designed to take the overflow. Now we're hearing a lot of lobbying pressure from the private campsite owners that they want the provincial parksites.... They're saying that these provincial sites are competing with their particular facilities, when in fact in so many cases it was the provincial parksite that attracted the public to that particular area, and the private campsite owners got the overflow. It's the old parable of the goose that laid the golden egg. The king or the farmer was quite happy with the golden egg produced by the goose, but once he killed that goose.... The stimulus that has taken place over the years by the parks branch will not be there. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) thinks it comical, but once the provincial parks branch stops stimulating the parks program that has been built up over many years, you are going to end up by killing the goose that laid the golden egg. It will not be beneficial to the province of British Columbia.

I feel we cannot afford to cut back on park development in this province. It's penny wise and pound foolish, as the old slogan goes. We must continue to realize that the changing economic and industrial development of this world is going to be reflected in this province. We must stimulate the tourist industry and the service industry. We must build something that is going to be a network throughout this province, that is going to be beneficial not only to those citizens of British Columbia who, like myself, like the outdoors, but to those many, many citizens of this province who do travel and want to take their families and their children. Also, retired senior citizens who have worked many years in the lower mainland want to travel throughout the province and see where the great wealth comes from in the north and want to see the great development that has taken place.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

As a minister, you have a responsibility not only to the outdoors community but to the business community. You have a responsibility to the whole economy. You are one of the parts of a jigsaw that is going to make this province turn around from going down in a depression style.... We are going to build up and stimulate the economy to take up the slack of lack of employment. We have to diversify. Over the last year in my riding, you have been cutting back in the parks branch department that designs the signs and that did a lot of the building within the area. It wasn’t that you were cutting down on something in my constituency, but you are taking out and losing to this province a lot of the artisans, tradesmen and people who over the years have become the technocrats at putting out the best type of signs, ones that are conducive to the surroundings.

Some people will say the type of park benches and tables we have are too rich and we should go back to plywood and 2-by-4s. I disagree. I think because they are rich and stylish they do give a certain feeling that when you move in there you are sharing some of the wealth of this province. That type of construction encourages people to come out and travel through the park system. I know you could go out and say yes.... I don't know what the price is of building one; maybe $200 or $300. You could put it out for $150 and it will be made out of 2-by-4s and plywood. You can say, "Well, that's good enough for the campers because they're happy; look what they're using in some of the private campsites," and it's quite true. But I think the community is losing an awful lot. We are losing a lot of the style that the people of British Columbia rightfully have grown accustomed to. I think it's wrong.

In my own riding we had an opportunity to preserve 80-odd acres of land surrounding Sombrio Beach, one of the last areas on that west coast out to Port Renfrew that still had virgin timber growing, when you still had an example of what British Columbia looked like 500 or 600 years ago. The parks branch had an opportunity, in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests, to preserve this very unique area — an area with beaches, with surf, with seal caves. They never got off their

[ Page 2900 ]

butts and fought within the cabinet to preserve that particular area. If they had put in 200 or 300 camping sites in that area and made it accessible, the money that that would have generated in the business community from those additional people who would have travelled out there, who would have bought another tent or another sleeping-bag, another tent trailer.... Those senior citizens who like to travel in the spring or fall when the school children are not in the campsites would have gone out and bought another camper or another motor home. This is the type of stimulation that this minister can lead, but instead he allowed that 80-odd acres to be cut.

They say it was going to create winter jobs for 60 people for three years, but they are cutting it right now, and it's not winter. It was sold to the public that we had to preserve these jobs, and British Columbia lost — not only my riding but British Columbia: the business community, the citizens of this province, the tourist industry — because that area is easily accessible to the cities and to tourists that come from the States. It's an example of some of the west coast areas that are going to be destroyed because the ministry failed to take positive action.

[3:15]

We have the same situation with an area that a lot of the people in the outdoor clubs have been promoting, which was a mini West Coast Trail running from Jordan River out to Port Renfrew. It attracts many thousands of people who have taken the hike along the West Coast Trail. Those who are into the outdoors know that the money that is spent just to outfit somebody who is crazy enough to go out there for five to seven days.... It's not something for which you just pick up your goods from home. You have to prepare yourself, you have to take the training and you have to buy the equipment.

AN HON. MEMBER: The last time I went outdoors with you you got me into trouble.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you ask the minister over there to keep quiet? The last thing I want is for some of the capers that he's led me into ever to get out into the public. I would never, ever like that to be entered into Hansard, and I will deny it.

Mr. Chairman, the outdoors clubs and various groups have approached the parks branch and the Forests ministry. They should build a shorter mini West Coast Trail from Jordan River along the property lines right into Port Renfrew. It would encourage a number of tourists to stay in our area because they can make the hike in one or two days; there is French Beach and China Beach, and there should have been the Sombrio Beach campsite where they could stop off as they made the trip. Not only would it encourage tourists, but if this minister had used the clout that I know his size indicates he has — and I know from sitting on the same side of this building at one time the volume of his voice and his persuasive capabilities in cabinet — the building of that trail and of those parks could have been integrated with creating job training for a lot of young people that are unemployed.

I know the minister is very much aware of some of the job training that has been a spinoff from the EBAP program, where you have taken unemployed youths who have never had an opportunity to work in the woods, who never had a chance to use chainsaws.... The EBAP is a program that has trained and given some work skills and work opportunities to a lot of people. If that minister had used the same attitude to enlarge the parks of this province, and had taken some of those who are at the present time collecting unemployment or welfare and developed some opportunities for those people to go to work to build the necessary additions to our parks, that spinoff would have been positive not only to those who are unemployed but to the whole tourist industry and business community. It would have been something more constructive than the idea that we are cut back and save money. We are already paying that money in the way of UIC and welfare, and we are not getting trained people from that money the province is paying. We are not encouraging more people to come into the province. We are not selling the idea that we have parks throughout this province that have regular park rangers or wardens on duty 24 hours a day and that there will be some security if you go into a park. This is what we must stimulate. I say very honestly that the parks branch has been negligent in their long-range programs.

There's another part that I think the ministry should be looking at — and I believe stories I've heard that a study has already been made, namely the study on the proposed park surrounding Robson Bight. The Ministry of Environment did bring in Robson Bight area as an ecological preserve to protect the killer whales that come down Johnstone Strait and congregate in the Robson Bight area. But if we are going to preserve that particular habitat of killer whales, there is going to have to be some long-range planning to protect the shoreline so that you will not have a lot of people wandering in and out of there disturbing the whales. If the province is going to make an honest attempt to protect the killer whales, which should take place, we should also provide, if we are going to invest that kind of money, the opportunity for people to come and view the killer whales when they congregate in that particular area. It has to be designed so that they can come down and we can watch them, but they can still have the protection of the shoreline. You can still have people — park wardens of some type — who can explain what is happening and not just allow it....

It's going to receive an awful lot of worldwide publicity. Robson Bight is one of two unique areas on this whole coast; the other is on the American side, in the Juan de Fuca area, where killer whales do come and congregate, and come up and rub their bellies on the beach. The only other one that is known is Robson Bight in British Columbia. This is something that is unique and is going to attract people. The publicity that has gone out already has attracted an awful lot of boats up there and a lot of people going into the area without knowledge of how they should behave. I believe that right now that area is under a tree-farm licence with MacMillan Bloedel, and there are certain areas behind that area that should be protected.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a lot more. Either the minister would like to answer, or my colleague would like to....

MRS. WALLACE: I've been very interested in what my colleague is saying, and I would like to hear him continue: I wonder if he would be prepared to carry on and tell us more.

MR. MITCHELL: I would just like to finish up what I had to say. I feel that the parks branch has a unique opportunity for British Columbia to do some long-range planning now. I sincerely hope that the minister will look at the area

[ Page 2901 ]

surrounding Robson Bight before it is logged off and the logging road and trucks come right down to the beach, so that an area three or four miles back, or maybe more, can be preserved. Did you realize that the Tsitika River is one of the most productive salmon rivers of this area? Not only does it have all five species of salmon spawning into it, and a fairly substantial number go up there every year to spawn, but it also has two or three different types of trout that are in the river regularly and come back to that area to spawn — the steelheads, the cutthroat and the char.

This is an area that we can lose; it can be destroyed. If we look at the penny-wise and pound-foolishness of worrying about the amount of timber that will be cut out of that area.... Right now there is a shortage of a market for logs, but we'll say that there is a $3 million or $4 million value in the timber of that area. I think that the long-range money that can come out of using that unique place in Canada, where the killer whales can be viewed by the public.... We can, with proper protection of the shoreline, with proper viewpoints, campsites and park wardens, make that site one of the big money attracters to this province. It is unique, and let's not lose it because we're worrying about $3 million worth of timber — I don't know the figures; maybe it's $5 million or $10 million. I think that over the next 10, 15 or 20 years, with that location and the long-range idea of what we can do in British Columbia, that area is something that we cannot afford to lose.

Some of my right-wing friends over there say we have too much land in parks. If you took at your hand and say this is Campbell River and that's the north end of Vancouver Island, all the areas that are right now held for parks would cover your thumb, little finger and maybe a part of your ring finger. Of all that land that is presently being utilized for timber and everything else, such a very small amount has been preserved for parks. We can't afford to put blinkers on our eyes and say that we've got to log everything and to hell with the future. In the future, people are going to be paying for the massive debts that this government has got into, and we have to look at other things besides cutting timber and selling it and running. We have to build up that secondary industry and stimulate our economy.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I've never had the opportunity to travel all the park areas, but maybe next spring I'll go to a few more.

I think what the minister said is so true, when he said that.... One of the parks we have started to preserve is the Valhallas. The reason that the Valhallas park was created was not that it was a popular thing to do. The pressure from the mining and forestry industry was to cut and develop that. When they did the in-depth study of how many jobs would be created by cutting all the timber and taking out all the mineral wealth, and then compared all the money that would come back to the community if it was promoted as a park — the secondary spinoff of the tourist industry — it was a better investment to develop the Valhalla as a national or provincial park. That same attitude and the same sort of economic studies will show that in our parks throughout British Columbia. Whether you take them individually or as a group, it's the parks that will bring people into our areas, and these parks must be made safe.

[3:30]

I would ask the minister to give serious thought to creating a park warden system to ensure that every park has people who are in instant communication with the local RCMP, and that if there are any problems or rowdy parties, or anything that even resembles something that happened in Wells Gray Park, there is protection to the community. When you took at it, it's something that we can't afford not to have.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would like to ask the minister about one other thing before he gets up. Last year an amendment came in dealing with the problems that were created when they brought in the 21-year land leases. At that time the amendment was that the public could cross areas that were given as leases providing they were in possession of a fishing or a hunting licence. At that time, I know the minister will recall, I was opposed to it because it created a whole new set of problems for policemen, that they had to go out and if you didn't have a licence you had committed an offence; that people who were out bird-watching or hiking, or taking their family for a walk, never had access. The facts are that the type of people who go bird-watching or take their families on picnics and camping are not the ones who cause the damage compared with the ones who are packing guns into the woods. I say this from talking to many companies that have a lot of logging equipment out in the woods. When they allow people in those areas there is a small minority of those who pack guns who create an awful lot of damage.

In closing I notice, in going through the minister's estimates, he is indicating that last year his office had an expense of $187,000 under vote 61. This year the estimate book indicates that his minister's office is being cut to $176,639. I would like to bring to his attention, before he takes the plaudits for cutting his ministry, that last year under his budget, in that $187,000 there was also $22,400 for travel. If you add that, and I believe now it's all hidden away under the Provincial Secretary's estimates.... Even without any increase in travelling, if you add that $22,400 to the figure he has for this office, it will actually show that he has increased his minister's office vote to $199,039.

I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not given to this House any long-range programs of what the parks branch can do. He's indicated by press releases that they're going to cut here, they're going to cut there, they're going to save money, when in fact these books are really cooked. They don't really say....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That term will have to be withdrawn, please.

MR. MITCHELL: All right. If the word "cooked" is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, just a simple withdrawal.

MR. MITCHELL: They're misleading for people, because I had to go and look, and do a lot of research to find out where his travel money was. It took us a little while. We had to drag it out of the minister of municipalities.

Anyway, I feel that the minister does need a shake-up. He does need to take a stronger position in this cabinet. He's got

[ Page 2902 ]

to give some leadership. He's been a junior member, which really doesn't help British Columbia. It doesn't help the outdoors. It doesn't help the tourist industry. It doesn't help the business industry. For that I would like to make an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that vote 61 be reduced by the amount of $1.

I know this is very traditional, but I really believe that if that minister listens and looks and does the proper studies, enlarges the provincial park system in this province, gives the security that our provincial parks need by installing park wardens, preserves those national sites that are unique in British Columbia — I use one, Robson Bight — and develops parks there, we can stimulate the tourist industry for something that is not available in the wild state anywhere else in this country. I move this motion positively hoping that this minister will take that position and will look ahead for British Columbia and not try to close it down and ruin our park system, which has been built up over three or four governments, and that we will do something positive with our parks that is needed for B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, I will have to speak against that amendment, which I believe is a standard form of expression of non-confidence in the minister. It is a bit difficult to accept, of course.

The member has covered a great deal of territory. I'd like to touch on a few of the areas he has covered, with perhaps a bit of resentment at comments such as "the books have been cooked" and "hidden" and so on. It's been made plain and clear to you, without my having to say it, that the travel fund for the minister's office has all been put under the Provincial Secretary's budget. It is there, and you know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't last year.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Even if the member does take the $187,000 up to $199,000 and work it out as a percentage increase, knowing the staff got increases and so on, it is basically the status quo in the office. So we'll leave that part of it.

The member started out by saying we were cutting back and causing harm to the parks system. It is a little difficult to accept that when you consider that the capital maintenance budget in the parks under this minister has gone up from $2.3 million to $3.9 million during difficult times; an increase of $1.6 million in order to develop our parks. Our operation budget has stayed basically the same. When the member gets into how much less supervision is being done in parks, perhaps we are victims of our own success. We have created a great many more parks in the last couple of years, not to mention Valhalla Park. That proposal, which came in way back in 1961, was raised and dropped, raised and dropped. It went through the three years of the NDP, who believe in parks, but nothing happened. We were able to do it six months after I entered the ministry. So I feel a little resentful when that member says we have done nothing to add to parks. We have added parks and many campsites, and have done a lot of park development during this time.

Let me touch on Robson Bight. The member says we should be developing that to attract thousands of people from all over the place. I find that a little difficult to accept, because the reason for setting aside Robson Bight was for the protection of the whales, The technicians tell me that if you bring a lot of people to view the whales and throw rocks at them, or whatever, it will really undermine the purpose of the Robson Bight protection area. So we don't want to attract thousands and thousands of people from all over the world to go out there and molest the whales. We want that to be preserved. We are looking at what can be done further back there and in a lot of other places in order to develop our system of recreation areas for the people.

The member does mention that we have developed one of the finest parks systems. I am certainly proud of the work my staff has done, even under the restraint program. And under the restraint program, as I think the figures indicate, we've increased our capital amount and kept our operations the same for our parks. What we are doing — with a great deal of credit again to the people out there — is trying to maintain and improve the services by doing them in perhaps a little different way. In our provincial campsites, we now spend $5 million or so more each year than we take in in revenues. The member is suggesting full-time supervision in every campsite everywhere in the province, so that would quickly go to $50 million, I would imagine.

If you want to do all that the member is suggesting, it would be ideal. It's a great ideal. But where do you get the revenue? To pick up on the analogy the member used, we don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Certainly we don't. That's our whole objective. Remember, as the cost of supervising the parks grows in relation to the revenue that is realized from them, it's the taxpayers who pay for it. That's the goose that lays the golden egg — which we don't want to kill. We think we can have a very fine parks system. We think we can supervise the parks adequately, and we think we can find new, imaginative ways to involve people. He says the money is going on welfare, so put a warden on. When you put on three shifts of wardens a day, you are not simply replacing welfare, you are adding immensely to the cost, and you have to get the money from somewhere. That is what we are saying. It is easy enough to say: "Well, if you save Sombrio Beach, that will attract all the people there to camp." Efforts have been made to preserve a strip along there, the essential strip that will work on behalf of the tourists and the tourist industry, and we recognize that. But you can't simply say that every area that is unique and beautiful in British Columbia....

[3:45]

Again, we're victims of our own wonderful success. We have so many unique and beautiful areas. People come to me as the minister, or to my staff, and say: "This area must be preserved. You don't want to log everything." If that member had any concept of how many of these proposals come to my desk alone, never mind to ministry staff, saying we mustn't log everything and so on. When you add them all up, in effect we could save the whole province, because the whole province is beautiful. Maybe that would be great. But in the meantime, even the people who buy the sleeping-bags and go to enjoy our parks have to have jobs from which they get the money to buy this equipment. There is a compromise that has to be looked at.

It's not a so-called "guise of restraint," as the member says. We are dealing with restraint. We are involving people. We are trying to find a better way to do the same thing because we too believe in the preservation of our parks

[ Page 2903 ]

system. But we cannot add up all of the areas where they say: "Don't log here. Don't mine here. Don't do this here, don't do anything here." We can't do that. You say that the percentage of parks in the province is very small. Yes, it's perhaps 4.8 percent of the land area in this province. But you have to keep in mind, Mr. Member, that all the arguments are over 10 or 12 percent of the land in this province. There's a lot of barren land and mountaintops, and some of it is in provincial parks. But you can't put them all into campsites. Furthermore, we do not want to develop them. I get one pressure to preserve a piece of land in its natural state. The next pressure I get is to put in roads, trails, campsites, etc.; in other words, do away with the natural state. So there are these various and conflicting pressures that come at you.

I'm trying to cover briefly some of the things the member said. He mentioned long-range planning. I'd like that member to know we are into long-range planning. Instead of dealing with each little ecological reserve by itself, instead of treating each park proposal by itself, we have been pulling together all of these so that we get a composite picture and know where the in-filling needs to happen in this province, and there is some that needs to be done. We are into long-range planning, for both the development of new parks and of existing parks, and in what way they should be developed.

I could speak for many hours on the parks. I think we have one of the finer systems, one model, and we're trying to refine that.

Briefly, on the grazing lease amendment that came in, the member will recall that it was to allow those with hunting or fishing licences to be on the land at a particular time. We find out that it didn't cover the rest of them; that it didn't really do the job. So I have been consulting for the past year with the various wildlife groups, organizations and the ranching community. We've said: "Look, we don't want to pass a regulation that doesn't do the job and can't be enforced. It defeats the whole purpose and it won't work." Cooperation, coordination, and then perhaps some rules and regulations as a result of that. Within the next month or six weeks I expect to have a joint meeting with some of the various interest groups to try to resolve that one. I'll leave that with the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is that vote 61 be reduced by the amount of $1.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 25

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

On vote 61.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: I would just like to follow up on what the minister said on the particular amendment we brought in last year dealing with allowing people to cross Crown grazing lands. The minister now is agreeing with what I said last year: that the particular amendment did not solve the problem that it was created to solve. At that time there was a certain amount of pressure from the outdoor communities and the fish and wildlife groups. We cannot afford to give away the province in 21-year leases for grazing and not allow the general public some access to the lands behind. We don't want to build up that area or balkanize it by putting in land leases between them.

Mr. Chairman, that particular amendment which was brought in touted that this was going to solve the problem and allow people to get into the rest of British Columbia. I don't want the impression to get out into British Columbia that this was only a smokescreen and that the minister does not intend to give access to British Columbians; that he is going to allow the leases and all the rules and regulations that they brought in to protect those leases, and block off access to the Crown land behind them for the rest of the community. I just don't want to see it left in limbo. You've had a year now to go over it and study it, and I am hoping that we'll get some announcement somewhere down the line that there is going to be something positive that's going to be working.

[4:00]

Also I would like to comment again on the attitude that I seemed to get from the minister when he made light of the protection of the whales in Robson Bight. He seemed to have missed the point of what I said. Certain groups feel that maybe we should just keep it there and no one be allowed to get to that particular site in British Columbia. Because of the publicity and because it is such a unique site people will be attempting to go to Robson Bight and watch the 100 whales that come down to that area every day in the summer. Either people will be going there or the boating community will be going there. Maybe campers will be going to it. I'm asking the minister to look at preserving the area — not putting a wire fence around it or shutting it off, but developing that historical, ecological site so that people can get down there and watch the whales without throwing rocks or taking potshots at them. The area could be developed and the whales protected. It's easy to say: "Oh, well, we'll just put our head into a sand bucket and then it will go away." It may go away. The whole site may be destroyed, and then you'll say: "Gosh, we should have done something."

I know there are studies being made on that particular park area. I would like to see those studies released. I would like the minister and his staff to consult with those who are sincerely concerned with this historical site. Parks Canada are looking at it, as the minister is aware. Let's not lose it like we lost Sombrio because it's going to cost money. This is the only one in British Columbia; there are only two of these sites in the whole North Pacific where whales come in that close. Don't make fun of it; don't say: "Some people say do this; some people say do that." I say do what is best to protect that area. It's your responsibility to make sure it is protected so that years from now no one's going to say: "It was the minister back in 1983 who ruined it."

[ Page 2904 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll respond briefly to the two points that the member raised.

On the issue of pressure on the grazing leases, there never has been and will not be prevention of access through the 21-year grazing leases. It has been built into any grazing lease that any existing roads and trails can be registered when the lease is granted — and must be so shown — and the ministry retains the right to retroactively put in a trail or a road or some form of access across a grazing lease if the need becomes apparent. So that is protected. The problem has been access onto all of that land by anybody. There is where we're trying to resolve it rationally, rather than just by making rules and then having to fight — we've gone through that process. We're trying to resolve rationally this problem of access onto the land, because those people with grazing leases have the right to do developments and feel that they have some protection. Since it is Crown land, and leased, not owned, the outdoors people — not just hunters and fisherman, but all — feel that they should have a right to go onto that land where they have traditionally hunted or hiked or rock-collected, or something of that nature. I don't argue with that. What we're trying to do is come up with a compromise solution for that. Access has been and is guaranteed throughout the 200,000-some hectares involved.

I should point out, too, that no additional land has been set aside for grazing leases. These were lands that were held under grazing leases previously; anything else now goes under the permit system, which doesn't give the owner nearly the security or the requirements for development. So it's simply restoring something that the ranching community had. We're trying to work out a system whereby they can have the protection that they want and people can have the access that they want onto the land. Overall it is not really a problem, and it's unfortunate that that illusion exists out there.

Just a brief reference to the Robson Bight whales. I was responding to what the member said. He wanted development. He was talking about it attracting thousands of people from anywhere, and that was not the purpose of setting that aside. The thing was to protect those whales. And the other thing — again, I'm not clear on this — is that the member said we should develop that land back of there at the same time as he talked about an ecological reserve. You do not develop ecological reserves. Ecological reserves are to prevent usage of a particular area; probably the strongest form of protection that we have in this province to leave things in a natural state is an ecological reserve. I think, however, that I'll read the intent of what the member was saying as being that since people will likely be attracted there and want to go and look at it, whatever steps possible should be taken to try to control that access. In that, we're fully in accord with you.

MR. BLENCOE: I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity, brief though it might be, to make a few statements about the housing component of the minister's ministry. The issue in terms of the housing portion is the apparent lack of a really clear policy in terms of a public initiative in the housing field. I suppose it has to do with this government's general philosophical position that government has no role to play in the housing area and that it should not be establishing or helping to establish public housing corporations. For instance, we used to have a Housing Corporation of B.C., which did a lot of things for housing for those who couldn't always afford the market housing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boondoggle.

MR. BLENCOE: No boondoggle. The facts are that that corporation did a lot of good things in this province. This government, of course, has virtually removed itself from a major responsibility in the housing area.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we on this side have given all cabinet ministers the opportunity to be uninterrupted in their discussion. Maybe that could be given to the opposition, and some respect could be shown to this side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, please, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, I didn't hear it.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, he knows what he said, and if he hasn't got the decency to admit it and withdraw, Mr. Chairman, I'll let it go by.

Housing is a very important component of a civilized society, and it has always been a component of a society that believes there are those who cannot always achieve decent housing in the existing marketplace. Unfortunately this government in its wisdom has decided to remove itself, virtually in total, from participating in the housing area. Not only has it done that, but in this particular session it has also decided to eliminate the first-home grant, which was and is a major blow to all prospective first-time home buyers. Not only is the government doing very little on the rental side in terms of assistance — or, if it is, it is participating with the federal government and utilizing their funds — but it is also eliminating one of the major ways that a tenant who might not have the opportunity without this grant would have the opportunity to buy their first home. Everyone, I think, would like to own their home sometime.

That grant was in place for a number of years and was a major support for those first-time buyers. It gave a little support not only to the first-time buyers but to the person who perhaps didn't have as much income as some others did to purchase their home. We on this side of the House were very sad, and I think a lot of people in the province of British Columbia were disappointed that the government decided to put that grant as a low priority, and therefore eliminate it. After giving many young families starting out in life a chance to purchase a home, that extra $2,500 is not available to them any longer. It is, I'm sure, providing some hardship to those who would like to own their own home. I think it was a bad move, and hopefully the government will reconsider it down the road.

The other thing about the elimination of that grant was that it was a tremendous blow to the co-op housing movement. The minister has denied this in various question periods, but the fact is that it was a blow to the co-op housing movement. The co-op members, who are considered homeowners, were eligible to receive the grant of $2,500. As you

[ Page 2905 ]

know, Mr. Minister, there is usually a share to be bought in a co-op, and that $2,500 allowed many of those people on lower incomes to buy that share and get into some decent housing. Now that is not available to those prospective co-op members, and it has had a major impact on the co-op movement, which is one of the programs that the federal government has continued to support. Everybody on all sides agrees that it's a good program.

In an area where it is doing very little else in housing, the provincial government's move has had a major impact on the co-op housing movement, not only to individual members, who could use the allocation for their initial share in gaining a place in a co-op, but also, of course, the money that was used to purchase that share made up much of the savings accounts for those co-ops in terms of their maintenance. They no longer have that kind of funding which allows them to maintain themselves properly. On behalf of co-op associations — and there are hundreds in this province — who feel very badly affected by this move of the government, I would again ask the minister and the cabinet to reconsider the position. Given the fact that you have decided in your wisdom to do very little else in the public housing field, this is one area where you were giving some incentive and encouragement to the co-op housing movement.

I don't have much else to say, Mr. Chairman, except that it's unfortunate that the government does not recognize, particularly in recession or depression times, that there are thousands of British Columbians who can't always participate in the marketplace in terms of housing.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We understand that.

MR. BLENCOE: You would be doing far more in the public housing field if you did understand that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: There is a limit.

MR. BLENCOE: You've virtually got nothing in place at all now, but I don't particularly want to get into a debate with individual members.

The issue is that you have virtually removed yourselves from the housing area. I believe that in the long term it is going to have some traumatic effects. If there was ever a time — when the vacancy rate is high and the private sector is managing to keep up to some degree — that the government should be preparing for future problems, this is it. With this massive crying out for public involvement, the government should now be looking to the future when these crises, in terms of housing shortages, will come upon us. All the estimations by CMHC and other experts are that approximately a year from now we are going to be in another housing crisis in the province of British Columbia, and the government is going to be facing some of these same kinds of concerns. Now is the time, Mr. Minister, to be preparing for those things, and to be initiating housing programs that could alleviate those potential problems in the future.

We on this side really wonder if the government is serious about housing and the fact that many British Columbians continue to face serious problems in this recession. We would hope that the government, in its wisdom, in the next year or so, would look at its priorities in this particular field. I can assure you that there is need out there. It's documented. The minister and his cabinet colleagues have virtually removed themselves from that particular operation.

[4:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There is enough material in housing policy to talk for days, but I'd like to just respond briefly. I think we are, probably more than ever before, looking to the future and preparing for the future of the housing needs in this province and hopefully in this country.

What the member doesn't realize, or doesn't wish to realize, is that for too long we have been looking at psychological illusions in the marketplace. We've found statistical evidence that once the first-home grants are in place the cost of houses is up the equivalent or a little more. So the person is not actually saving anything. All that happens is that it's added to the sale price of the home. So it's been done with the federal grants, the provincial grants.... You can take a look at the picture, and you see that actually happening.

What we are trying to get into is homes and houses that people can afford and that the taxpayers can afford. If you look at one narrow concept of it, it may sound great. For instance, you mentioned the co-op housing. You mentioned some of the social housing, if you like to put it under that title. Would you recognize, Mr. Member, that with the federal and provincial assistance programs combined some of these units are being subsidized to the tune of $1,000 to $1,100 per month? We cannot, as a society, afford to keep building housing that is subsidized to the tune of $1,000 per month from the taxpayers. Our program is to let that private sector build this. Our program and our policy is clearly spelled out in the policy booklet. What we are trying to get around to, not only in our own thinking but in meetings with other Housing ministers across the province.... It is being recognized that if we target that same amount of money to help people who need the help we could provide help to two or three times as many people as we are doing by actually getting into the house-building subsidy programs ourselves. I can't make it any plainer than that.

MR. BLENCOE: I can't let one of the minister's statements go by: that there isn't enough money for such an important component of society as adequate housing for all British Columbians, and that it costs too much — $1,000 subsidy. If you give us the example of that particular family — maybe that family is in great need, and needs $1,000. I would say, Mr. Minister....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Hang on! I would say, Mr. Minister, to you and to your cabinet colleagues...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: ...that you take a look at your priorities and your spending habits. You can spend millions and millions of dollars on information to try to convince the people of British Columbia that you're a good government, but you can't spend money on ensuring you've got an adequate housing program. Politics is about priorities, Mr. Minister. You've got $20 million and $30 million for Doug Heal, but you haven't got enough money to ensure good housing policies. That's priorities, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 2906 ]

Vote 61 approved.

Vote 62: ministry operations, $63,038,679 — approved.

Vote 63: ministry enterprises, $10 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 31: minister's office, $164,475.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, normally the minister likes to speak on his ministerial vote. I would be quite happy to let him speak if he wants to speak first.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I was just changing books. I did want to make a few comments. They will be very brief.

It's been a very great experience and a pleasure for me to be involved in the Environment ministry since the end of May. I found very quickly, as I think many members are aware, that it is a far more comprehensive ministry than many people recognize. It does not just deal with fish and wildlife. It gets into the full range of air management, fisheries management, marine resources, pesticide control, waste management, water management, surveys and mapping. Certainly there are many jurisdictions. It's a fascinating field. It's a ministry that has a lot of people working in a lot of different areas. I would like to welcome my deputy minister and senior staff here and commend them for the compressed education that they have given to a new minister and for the fantastic work that they and the other people out in the field do on behalf of the people of this province.

It seems that so much of what we have to deal with are the criticisms and whatever breaks down. If there is a spill, our attention is called to that. People don't recognize that there are hundreds of people out there in the field preventing spills, looking after them and doing all of the good things that protect our environment. So much of the public attention focuses on the very few exceptions that happen, rather than on the many good things that people carry out. I would like to point that out.

Some of the activities I've been been pleased to be involved in there are.... I've been trying to overcome some of the overlapping jurisdictions between ministries to simplify things. I'm fortunate enough to have two ministries that overlap occasionally, so I can fight with the same minister on occasions. I can give you one example, traplines, which might be a miniature thing in the whole package. Things such as trapper's licences come under the Ministry of Environment, the land on which they build the cabins is under the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, and then the Assessment Authority puts a value on it. We're trying to get that into one simple package. A certain amount has been done. There are other areas where we're doing the same thing.

One of the other projects I got involved in fairly quickly is in the lower mainland. The landfill for waste disposal in the area had reached a point where there are complications. We were able to pull together all of the representatives from the municipalities and reach an agreement. We gave ourselves one year to develop the waste management plan and to coordinate all those activities. I see a lot of good things happening, and I see a good long-range plan for the future.

The other things that come at you in this ministry are the disasters. If it's flood, fire or things of that nature we are somehow or other involved in it. I know it's impossible to compensate and restore all of the things that people lose in a disaster, but I am happy to say that we were able to deal with the Lions Bay and Williams Lake disasters in the form of disaster relief. You can't really compensate for all of the damage or injuries done during a disaster, but at least you can help people in that way.

One of the other areas that I'm very pleased to be involved in, because it's been a concern to me, the ministry and a lot of people in British Columbia, is the area of what we call special wastes. Other people call them toxic wastes or hazardous wastes: special wastes that can't be disposed of in the normal sewer systems. They cause concern, health problems and this sort of thing if they're not dealt with. I find that the technology is certainly available to deal with any and all of the hazardous wastes that we have in this province. They are mainly generated by ordinary, common usage and not just the factories and industries. There are wastes generated in this province.... At this point in time it is not a disaster, but we don't want to wait until it is and then try to pull back from that. Through proper special-waste management, which the Waste Management Act allows, we think that we can actually prevent harm to the environment. We can protect people from this. One of the three problems that we face is the will to do it. Fortunately this summer we have been able to convince government that doing nothing was the worst option, even though it was the easiest road to take. So we rejected that option, and we have a special waste management proposal put forth which involves Genstar, IT Corp. and the Ministry of Environment. It involves various areas.

We are dealing with a three-phase program: treatment, reduction and recycling and all of those things that are one part of the proposal; a final disposal site, a secure landfill that is going to be safe, that is not going to harm the environment or anyone.... You know, we could go into great detail about that, but it is not the sort of hole that you dig and pour in all these horrid chemicals, as has happened in the past. We're long past that; the technology is way beyond that in this day and age. Virtually inert solids go into the secure landfill, but all of the measures that would be taken are as though it were dangerous, and so we feel we've got double and triple security. Of course, I say it's a proposal at this stage. I'm sorry, the third element in that was of course the transportation, which involves collection, storage and so on, because you've got to bring it together before you can deal with it. So there are three elements.

I've said that it is a proposal, because by and large when the company that we have appointed is put in place to do this, when they can do all the necessary testing to say, "Yes, this can be done safely in this place," they then can apply for a permit and they have to satisfy our ministry people. We have some very competent technical people. They have to satisfy us, on that permit, that what they say can be done can actually be done and would be done. Any safeguards are built in for any possible fluctuations from the program or any possible spills, if you like, that go out of the pipeline that we're trying to create — a pipeline in theoretical terms. That permit application does allow for the public input that many, or some people at least, are screaming for at this time. They're saying there is no public input. There will be public input from our ministry — people on behalf of the people and from the people themselves before the permit is approved. So we have not eliminated public participation.

[ Page 2907 ]

We do say this: if the program is to succeed, the treatment facility must go somewhere and the final disposal site must be placed somewhere. A lot of the problem that we have to overcome there is misinformation, and the other part of it is the "not in my back yard" syndrome. In other words, I think we can get almost 100 percent agreement in this province that we should do something about this. The problem is, where? We think that by the time we're done we can show that the sites that we select are going to be safe, well protected and will cause no problem.

[4:30]

That comes under what our ministry is about: general environment protection — air, water, all of those things that make up our environment.

In connection with the wildlife concept of the province and there again I could get into quite a bit — more studies are happening, experiments are happening about how to enhance wildlife through management, through various activities, through predator control; a lot of those studies are going on. One of the things that I am pleased to say is that I can assure all those people who are paying surcharges on fishing and hunting licences that that money — I don't care which bank it sits in — is specially earmarked for the habitat conservation fund, and there is a committee that accepts applications besides. So there is no need to concern ourselves that that would be taken and put into general revenue.

There is of course a great deal more that I could say on this, but I am sure I'll be able to answer some questions for some of the members, if they have them.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for giving us a nuts and bolts description of what's involved in his ministry; he hasn't had too long to be in that position, and he has certainly learned the titles of all the sections of his ministry and knows something of what they cover. I'll talk more later about that nuts and bolts approach to environmental protection.

I have several unrelated things, but I'll move through them and I know the minister will take notes. I want to start with dollars and cents, because after all we are talking about estimates. I know it's been raised before — it was raised under Lands, Parks and Housing — but I am looking at the minister's office estimates for Environment. This year as compared with last year I note that they are down by something like $41,500. Well, it's interesting to note that there are no travel expenses in this year's estimates. Last year there were $45,000 travel expenses in that minister's estimates. The former minister must have really gotten around. That's not there this time.

So there are two questions I would like the minister to answer. Has that $45,000 been included in the Provincial Secretary's estimates? Has that been a request that's gone forward and been included along with the amount that he has requested for his other portfolio? Are they both in the Provincial Secretary's estimate, or is that one completely gone? Of course, when you take $45,000 off last year's, you wind up with an increase in this year's office budget rather than a decrease, as it might appear from looking at the estimate books.

This minister has a lot of titles. He's the Minister of Lands, Minister of Parks, Minister of Housing and Minister of Environment. Does he get a ministerial salary for all those ministries? If he doesn't, how come the salary vote is no lower? In fact, it's higher than it was last year. If he's not even getting his salary paid out of this vote, if his salary is being paid from Lands, Parks and Housing, it looks to me like some fancy footwork with figures to come out with what appears to be a reduction, but which is probably quite an increase in the minister's office budget.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There's not too much you can say about the figures in the budget for the various accounts for which the minister is responsible. The only one that I really have a question about is the grants. That seems to be twice as much this year as last. It's gone up from $465,000 last year to $846,000 this year. I am wondering why, in a year of restraint, those grants are going up so much? What is proposed to cause him to give so many more grants under the Ministry of Environment this year as opposed to last? We see some reductions, mostly in salaries. But the total salary reduction in the total budget is not that great. In fact, it's not great at all. It's just a shade under, if you total them all together. But there is not much difference.

So we hear about all these layoffs and terminations, and how we're going to save a lot of money, and yet the salary budget is not that much lower, as I total it up, in the total accounts for the ministry. We know we have had a lot of layoffs. We know that all the auxiliaries have been terminated. We know that the Minister of Environment wrote to his staff some time ago, talking about the throne speech and saying that the policy of restraint was going to affect them. It's a very strange letter, because it says that they're going to do certain things, and then they say they're going to have consultation with the staff. I think if you're going to have meaningful consultation, you should have it before you decide what you're going to do, not afterwards. This is a letter dated July 7, the day of the budget, from the deputy minister over there, which certainly got a lot of people up on their ear. I don't think you realize that people know they have to be careful about funding. I think people would like to cooperate.

I believe if you approached it by going into the field and asking for suggestions, rather than telling them what you're going to do and then asking for suggestions, you would have come up with a lot better answers. Perhaps if you had moved a little more slowly — you're not saving that much money at this point in time — and allowed a little more participation on the part of the people who worked for you, there would have been a lot better feeling about the thing. You might have got cooperation, instead of confrontation, which has certainly been fairly evident — not just confrontation but a great drop in staff morale. People who work for your ministry — not only yours, but others as well — are really discouraged. Some of them find themselves extremely overworked.

I mentioned this to you earlier in another venue during the course of debates in these chambers. I know of one conservation officer who, because of attrition, is being forced to cover two areas. His own area was already very large. On top of that, he has lost his secretarial help. That fellow was working days, nights and Sundays trying to deal with the problems. That's one isolated example, but I'm sure there are many others where that same situation is occurring. We've had a shortage of enforcement officers, conservation officers and people in the field for a long time. We've been letting those things go by attrition, and now we're going to chop it even more, simply by getting rid of a certain percentage

[ Page 2908 ]

without really listening to the advice of people who are in the field. I believe the people in the field could have helped.

A 20 percent reduction in your budget this year translates into 402 full-time staff positions, if you actually reduce that much. That's a major loss in a preventive field. As you said yourself, prevention is the major part and certainly should be the major part of your portfolio. I'm not sure that those positions that we're talking about were all filled. They may have already been vacant, some of them. When you have that amount of curtailment in staff, certainly you're going to have a curtailment in programs.

There have been concerns raised by many groups and organizations around the province. We expect a lot of environmental organizations to react because they have very definite concerns about various areas, be it fish and wildlife, waste management, pollution control, spraying or the use of chemicals. I thought it was rather interesting that in August of this year the chamber of commerce came out with a statement. They said: "While the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce clearly recognizes the need for continued economic development in the province, the chamber also believes that the impact of such development on the environment must be minimized. There are a number of environmental concerns to which we feel the provincial government must address itself in order to come up with a suitable solution." They deal with water quality, acid raid, air quality, energy and fossil fuel development and hazardous wastes, and the recommendation that they make is "that the Minister of Environment, in conjunction with federal and regional governments, work toward one set of clear jurisdictional administrative guidelines." I think that it's probably rather important that you think about what an organization like the Chamber of Commerce is saying.

I want to talk a bit about one of my favourite topics: the control of groundwater. This is something that I have dealt with with every Minister of Environment that's come along through that seat, and I always get assurance that it's being reviewed, and is almost ready, that you're looking at regulations, that the thing is well in hand. When I talk to the well-drillers — Pacific Well-drillers' Association, or whatever it is — they are always saying, yes, they are working in conjunction with you. But they are extremely anxious, for their protection, that this be brought in. I'm extremely anxious that it be brought in for the protection of people who depend upon groundwater. It's an extremely vulnerable thing. Surface water is well controlled under the Water Act, but there are no controls for groundwater. I would like the minister to tell me what the status of groundwater is at this time, because it seems the status is the same as it was back in 1975 when I first started raising it: "It's going to happen right away." It's that corner around which groundwater regulations never come.

The minister and I have had a lot of discussion relative to water quality in Shawnigan Lake, in my own constituency. Surface water, of course, is a problem, because surface water is fast becoming the sewer water of the fast-developing areas of this province and on this island in particular, in the highly populated areas.

I would certainly urge the minister to review the time delays, because it's no good after the problem has occurred. It's something called planning, Mr. Chairman, and it has to be undertaken well ahead of the time that the need is actually going to arise. The minister talked about prevention, and that's the key word that I picked up. Prevention really means moving in ahead of time and being preventive, not waiting until the problem occurs and then saying: "Well, how do we prevent this, after it's already occurred?" You have to move in ahead.

[4:45]

Another problem, certainly one that I know is difficult to handle — I'm not sure it's even in the right jurisdiction under the Minister of Environment — concerns the small water systems that are operated by a hundred and one developers around this province. Because of the need to sell some property as a subdivision, and for the permission to do this, they provide a haywire type of water system and write into the prospectus that water is available. Then there is nothing but trouble after that. Of course, one of the most important requirements for us to be able to function is to have pure water in our homes. Again, that's something that is going to take planning. It relates not just to surface water, but also to groundwater. You can put in a perfectly good and operative system dependent upon groundwater, and then if another one taps into that same reservoir at a lower level, they can simply drain the wells of the system next door. There is nothing to stop that happening, absolutely nothing. So that's another concern I have relative to the water rights section.

I'd like to talk a little bit about chemicals. The minister is aware that I've had a lot of questions on the order paper. I have read with great interest the answers he has provided, one of which I managed to pick out of a delayed Hansard today. It hasn't even been printed yet but I did get hold of it. I'm a bit surprised at the amount of chemicals that the minister has been.... We'll deal with that one first.

I asked him about the quantities and costs of pesticides, where they were used, the purpose and so on, whether it was stored or disposed of. It is interesting, the cost of these; there're a whole two pages of them here. Over $75,000 worth of chemicals were purchased in one year by various branches of the ministry, a lot of them relative to fisheries. Another thing that's a bit startling is the fact that there are over 4,000 kilograms of Aqua-Kleen, which contains an ester of 2,4-D, of course. I imagine that's left over from the experiments at Okanagan Lake, which fortunately have been stopped. But that's in storage, in possession. Now that's a fairly expensive thing to have in storage, but it is probably far worse to use it. What is the minister going to do with it? I hope he isn't going to try to use it.

I guess most startling were the answers to questions about pollution control permits: how many permits were reported to the minister, how many were found by the ministry, how many amendments were issued, how many charges were laid, who was charged, how many fines, and so on. It is interesting to note the number of companies charged as a result of these violations. There are two and a half pages of companies that were charged, and yet the information on the number of pollution control permits reported or detected is not available. And of those two and a half pages of companies that were charged, only 30 fines were levied, in the amount of $26,000. It would seem that the minister is involved in a continuation of his predecessors' actions over many years of issuing permits to pollute.

I asked him how many permits were actually issued. I find that in 1983 there were 182 waste management permits issued and 192 amended, and up to June 30, 79 permits were issued and 127 amended. I am concerned about the amendments. He tells me that many of those amendments were simply changes in names and so on. I notice that many of

[ Page 2909 ]

those amendments relate to forest companies. Can the minister tell me if in fact any forest companies have been given permits, or have had their permits amended, to allow them to burn contaminated wood — wood containing PCPs? Have any of the forest companies' permits been amended to allow them to discharge greater than the original amount of pollutants? It is something that happens when we are in dire economic times: people try to bend the rules relative to the environment. Short-sighted, in my opinion, and in....

Well, it's short-sighted period, because the long-term costs are going to be much greater. I would like the minister to advise me whether or not that is the case.

I am also very concerned about the changes in procedure that have taken place for appeals. Under the new act, of course, we have fees; we have something that is really intended to deter people from expressing sincere concerns, and what could be well-founded concerns. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have all the answers relative to these chemicals. One of the instances that has come to my attention is a request by the West Coast Environmental Law Association to the ministry relative to the use of two chemicals, allidochlor and chlorbromuron. Because of delays and incorrect answers, it was too late for West Coast to file an appeal by the time they got the information back. The questions that they were asking were relative to the adverse effects of those chemicals. The ministry had indicated that they had been cleared by the federal authorities and they had no authority to do anything about it. These were two chemicals that were tested by IBT, the Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories in the U.S., where, we all know, there have been fraudulent studies. These were two of the 113 chemicals which were registered in Canada. Some new studies have been completed, and Health and Welfare Canada approached the manufacturer of those two chemicals and requested that they do new safety studies, but the manufacturer refused. Health and Welfare Canada then discontinued the registration, and three provinces, of which B.C. was one, applied for permission to continue to use the chemicals, because they are used in agriculture. My point is that we do not know how safe those chemicals are. The minister and the ministry are doing nothing to assist people who are trying to evaluate whether or not they should be used; in fact, they seem to be standing in the way.

I have a letter here which was written by the chairman of the Environmental Appeal Board to a woman who happens to live in Maple Ridge. The letter is a bureaucratic nightmare. I don't want to take the time to read it all into the record, but I'm going to send the minister a copy. I'll just send it across the floor to him now. I think the minister has good common sense, and I'd like him to read it and put himself in the place of a genuinely concerned individual who received a letter like that. Everything that can possibly be done to discourage people from making legitimate appeals before the pesticide control appeal board seems to be being done.

Moving on to something else, the minister mentioned that the habitat conservation fund was in place and that it would be used, and that there was a committee which was set up.... My green light is on, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to respond to the whole range of activities that the member has covered, and perhaps deal with some of the issues at the end. For instance, the member mentioned — I've just had a chance to skim it — the "bureaucratic nightmare" letter. I'm rather pleased with the plain English letters, many of which go out from the ministry. However, when people start getting into technical, chemical questions where there are no clear-cut, yes-or-no answers.... I have read and signed a number of letters that on first glance appeared to be very technical and bureaucratic, and have gone through them, but you have to realize the question being asked. If it's a complicated question regarding chemicals or pesticides, there is no simple yes-or-no answer to many of these. On some of them there are, and then the letter can be plain. You cannot answer a highly technical, complex, comprehensive question with a short, plain English letter — not when you're getting into those terms.

[5:00]

For instance, the member mentioned the pesticides, allidochlor and chlorbromuron. I think your summary was that the ministry has done nothing about it. Well, when the ministry learned about this, as often happens, Agriculture Canada did deregister them. The ministry deregistered them mainly because the company chose not to do the expensive studies that would either prove them correct or not — to replicate the studies that had already been done in the States, which you brought into question. When they say "deregister," that does not necessarily mean there is something wrong. Our ministry then moved them from class 4 to class 1 herbicides; in other words, they are fully protected and could only be issued under permit. They put a course on for farmers — I believe there were 13 — who were applying these to make sure they were applied appropriately. Time may prove that they shouldn't be applied at all. But it would be a little difficult for us to just automatically eliminate everything that somebody raised a question about. I think you have to be overcautious on that side. But I don't think, if someone says, "There's a question about this," you automatically discard it. I think the ministry would be irresponsible if they didn't do some work. They do work on this, and they do respond. I'm amazed at how quickly they respond to some very complex problems.

The member also went into the amount of chemicals and so on. Most of that is for weed control and storage. I guess 2,4-D is no longer with the dioxins; anything containing dioxins is no longer being manufactured. I don't think there are any detectable dioxins in the Aqua-Kleen we use for spray. Nonetheless, the program was cut back, not so much — from what I've been able to learn — from actual empirical data that there was harm in destroying the milfoil but because of emotional reaction to it. I'm not technical enough to know whether that it is exact or not. On the other hand, you should see the letters that I'm getting now saying: "Why did you stop killing the milfoil? It's growing." You can't win on some of those.

Control of groundwater. I think a great deal is being done. Certainly there is a lot of cooperation between our ministry and the well drillers. I'm not quite sure whether the member wants a licence, a permit or an inspection for every well. We do what we can to test the groundwater and to control seepage. Again, I'm not quite sure what the member wants.

Getting back to the beginning of her presentation and questions....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I think some question can be raised about it, because I happen to hold the portfolio for

[ Page 2910 ]

both ministries. There are ministers' office expenses proposed. I can assure the member and the House that I get one salary, even though I have two portfolios. I have one staff who manages to handle both; it's a combined staff. If this remains and the staff is not needed, then it will not be spent. I can assure the member of that.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his answers. They don't really resolve my problem relative to the dollars in his ministerial vote. Certainly he has had a very extensive increase in that vote if, in fact, his salary is not in there and there are no travel expenses. It would appear that he has a good-sized increase in that vote.

There are a couple of things I want to raise with the minister. I know we have discussed them before, but I am extremely concerned about his decision not to assist intervenors in various public hearings in any way. Again, that is bridling the people who would be unable, for financial reasons, to make presentations without that kind of assistance. It's worked well before. Certainly it worked well in the case of the Site C hearings, where, in fact, as a result of those interventions the decision came down. Had it not been for those interventions we would have been well embarked on a program that would have cost us a considerable amount of money.

Hazardous wastes. The minister has mentioned that program. Certainly I think he is correct. We all agree that there must be a hazardous-waste site. I agree that nobody wanting it in their back yard is a problem. But I do have some concerns about choosing a site at the confluence of two rivers. The Fraser is a mighty fish river. Perhaps it's not so much the leachate from the site, but it's the transportation that bothers me. I notice in Genstar's waste management proposals, which they have sent me, that they say there will be very small amounts transported up and down that Fraser Canyon. There are something like 86,000 tonnes of material sitting at Endako mine waiting for such a site. You start transporting stuff like that down the canyon and then back up, if you're going to bring it down to some central point where you're going to treat it....

I'm concerned, too, about the proposals. It's definitely not a contract; they say that this is just a sort of mutual agreement but it's not binding in any legal sense, so we could find that it's much looser when the final contract is drawn up. But even in this, the statements are very loose, relative to the monitoring. It would appear that there are going to be some committees set up, and the data is going to be basically provided by the company. That bothers me very much. I think we have to have a stronger kind of control in that.

I mentioned the nuts and bolts early on. Yes, the minister has mastered the nuts and bolts, but it's obvious that that minister, like his predecessors, lacks any real philosophy or commitment to the long-term environmental issues. I would refer him to a report that was done by the Science Council of Canada — it's in the library here — as of January of this year, which goes into the good economics of following the environmental way. It talks about the whole concept of a conserver society, about utilizing the things we now are spending dollars to get rid of, and about living in harmony with our environment rather than confronting it. That's prevention at its ultimate, Mr. Minister, and that's the kind of commitment that I have failed to recognize in what you have said today. Maybe at some later time that will come, but if it does it will be a first for a member representing that side of the House.

MR. PASSARELL: These will just be short questions to the Minister of Environment — very short, like within about 45 seconds if possible. The first one is regarding the game warden in Atlin. I've had discussions with the minister before, but just to put it out....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), we've gone two days with fairly good debate in this Legislature, so why don't you be quiet and just let it go by, and show that you do hold some type of intelligence.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't lecture to the House.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm not lecturing to the House; I'm lecturing to you, Mr. Minister, to show some maturity in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the vote, please.

MR. PASSARELL: The present system that we're having without a game warden up in the community of Atlin is that we have a Fish and Wildlife officer flying in from Cassiar four hours a week, at a cost — depending on what airline he goes on — of $420 to $460 for the return trip. What I would like....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: As the minister of noise has just said, there is a lot of poaching going on, and I would hope that the minister could look at some type of plan for next year in which a local person could be deputized over the hunting season. Because there is a lot of poaching going on from the Yukon and Alaska in this particular area, and we would have one individual sitting in the area for the two months of the hunting season to put a little control on the poaching.

The policy of not having the game warden in Atlin has also caused difficulty to the outfitters, because the foreign hunters coming and working under licences of the outfitters need export permits for transportation of the meat out of the province. Not having the officer there, or someone who can sign for the forms, has caused problems, particularly when the hunts start in August when the weather is much warmer and the meat has been spoiling. If we could have someone in Atlin — someone local — who could sign the forms, that would help that.

The last issue I'd like to talk about is the wolf program. A recent Yukon study....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, we're in agreement on this one.

My hon. friend from Omineca would probably be interested in these statistics. The Yukon government has just concluded a study for the northwestern British Columbia and southern Yukon area in which it is shown that there are 11 moose per wolf in that immediate area, while the figure should be 50 to 60 moose per wolf, I would like the minister to look into some type of elimination program, because those figures are just getting too low. When you're talking about 11 moose per wolf, that's much too low. It's a detriment to the

[ Page 2911 ]

hunters and to the individuals who live in that area who have to depend on the moose. That figure should be five times higher than what's presently being shown in studies. I would certainly hope the minister could do something so my hon. friend from Omineca and myself....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Just be quiet, Mr. Minister for Industry and Small Business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's retain a little bit of decorum.

[5:15]

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're just about ready to conclude on this issue.

I would certainly hope that the minister would look at some kind of program to have some kind of stringent control over this, because the moose are losing in numbers. When you start talking about 11 moose per wolf, when it should be 50 or 60, there is a problem with wolf control in the far north. I would certainly hope the minister could look at something to replenish the moose in the far north.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: You know, Mr. Chairman, at times I find it so difficult, and I know you do too. If he could just be quiet for 15 seconds, then we could conclude this. I know my friend from Omineca is interested in what I'm saying, even though the member for South Peace River isn't.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yeah, you don't even know what you're talking about half the time, anyway.

On to the vote and to the minister. I would certainly hope you could look to have some kind of stringent program to get the moose population back up to where it should be in the far north. I'd like answers to those questions, and hopefully we'll get this vote through before 6 o'clock.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I just have one question to ask the minister under this vote. I'll be very brief. It's the matter of flood protection in the Bella Coola valley. Your predecessor was very good in assisting that part of my riding with $200,000. It was a very good job, and a very difficult job, he did on it. We did get $200,000 out of Treasury Board. However, the total job was estimated by your ministry to cost $1.2 million. I'm sure your deputy is very familiar with this topic. There is a severe problem in the Bella Coola valley in terms of flood protection.

I notice, Mr. Minister — if the emergency assistance program falls under this vote — that once again that program is only budgeted for $3.5 million. Could the minister advise me what plans the ministry has for future flood protection in the Bella Coola valley, a potentially dangerous situation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In response to that, yes, we're aware of it and looking at what can be done in terms of how much it costs and what you're ending up protecting, because some diking was done there, as you know. We are working with the Ministry of Forests, as you know, about logging the watersheds and seeing what protection can be done there. We're working with the Ministry of Forests to make sure that we can protect any areas that might create flooding. So we're working with the Ministry of Forests and are looking at whatever diking can be done there.

I'll just briefly touch on the questions of the member for Atlin. Yes, we have the same concern about no conservation officer in that northwest corner of the province. The conservation officer quit, and we haven't found anybody to move in there, and we're trying to cover it as best as we can.

As far as the export permits, we did get an order-in-council passed so that they wouldn't have to worry about exporting into the Yukon. The highway goes, as the member knows, back and forth across that border, so they could check in at Fort Nelson or check in at another one. So we got that passed immediately that problem arose.

As far as the Yukon study, yes, I'm aware of that and some other studies. It's not only wolves, as the Yukon and Alaskan studies show — as the member will know — but black bear have turned out to be a significant predator problem in the destruction of caribou and moose. Yes, we're looking at it. Probably the best thing I can say is that there's been a lot of emotional talk about predator control, saving the wolves and saving the moose, and weighing one against the other. What's coming in now from some of our own studies and studies from elsewhere is that there's some good, hard information coming out so that people can say: "Which do you want? Wolves or moose? You can't have both." Those studies are coming in, and I think they will help a great deal. As the slogan up north says: "Eat moose. Five thousand wolves can't be wrong."

Vote 31 approved.

Vote 32: resource and environmental management, $79,212,164 — approved.

Vote 33: emergency assistance, $3,530,000 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 49: minister's office, $195,191.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's my great honour today to stand before the House to begin the estimates on the Ministry of Human Resources. I will say a few words about the responsibility for rapid transit, although it is not embodied in this funding. I'll refer to it later.

First of all, I want to say at the outset that I'd like to talk about my ministry in the context of our government's determination to build a sound base for lasting prosperity. One of the challenges government faces in achieving this objective is providing quality social services while maintaining control over costs. That is very difficult in a ministry like the Ministry of Human Resources, but our ministry is meeting this challenge. In the face of relatively high unemployment, the Ministry of Human Resources continues to help increasing numbers of people who cannot help themselves. Simultaneously it is putting a lid on our administrative costs. By continuously reviewing its programs to identify the most efficient ways of delivering services, our ministry ensures that a minimum of available resources is directed towards

[ Page 2912 ]

administration, while the maximum possible is working to assist British Columbians in need.

Looking back over the years for a moment, I'd like to point out that this ministry has been very successful in meeting its objectives of relieving poverty and assisting persons in need to become independent and self-supporting. During more prosperous years, almost 70 percent of our clients became independent within three months of receiving limited financial assistance from our ministry. If you think about that, that meant that seven out of ten people who applied for income assistance were self-sufficient within three months of obtaining that assistance. Even with our bad economic picture, in the economic times that are less favourable in fiscal 1982-83, approximately 50 percent of our clients still become independent within their first three months of receiving financial assistance. Again, I might emphasize that out of ten people who now apply for assistance, within those very short 90 days, they are already back, independent and living self-sufficient lives without any help from the government whatsoever. Even in this bad economic situation, these impressive statistics reflect our people's initiative and positive self-help spirit.

Because our clients are motivated to work, efficient use of ministry resources includes staff involvement in enhancing the employability of those clients who have been less successful in securing a job. To this end, my ministry provides an Individual Opportunity Plan, which is a combination of programs such as career counselling, vocational training and upgrading, on-the-job work experience and training in job search techniques. I'd like to say to you that the Individual Opportunity Plan has been a leader in this nation and one which has worked in the downturn of the economy as well as it did in very affluent times.

Over the last fiscal year approximately 6,000 clients per month participated in the Individual Opportunity Plan at a cost of $4.4 million. Of that amount, $2.6 million was expended on training and education, for an average of 3,100 clients per month — 3,100 of those 6,000 who are upgrading their training and education.

It should be noted that because, as I mentioned, the majority of our clients move off income assistance by themselves, the numbers of clients participating in the Individual Opportunity Plan are even all the more impressive. These are the people who do not move off by themselves but are involved in an Individual Opportunity Plan after the first three or four months of being on income assistance.

One of several programs operating under the Individual Opportunity's Plan, Mr. Chairman, is the job action program. This program trains people in job search and interview techniques, and helps people gain a realistic view of their own value to an employer. Approximately 1,700 clients took part in the job action program during fiscal 1982-83; about 57 percent of them subsequently became self-sufficient. The levels of these job placements vary with the ability to find jobs and the seasonal fluctuations, rising up to 70 percent in the spring and summer and dropping considerably in the fall and winter. In addition to the job action program, client employability is enhanced under the Individual Opportunity Plan through on-the-job experience provided under the work activity and incentive programs as well as under the employment training program, which is jointly operated with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland.)

In 1982-83 expenditures for my ministry increased by 32.9 percent, a dramatic increase over the year before. This is a result of unemployment caused by the recession. Although there are signs of economic recovery, it is expected that the number of British Columbians requiring income assistance will remain higher than usual throughout most of 1983 and 1984. At the same time, recognizing government resources are limited — the resources and the taxes coming to government — the budget increase for 1983-84 will be moderate, at 13.9 percent over the previous year's expenditures. Facing an increased need for income assistance to bridge this period of relatively high unemployment, the government has held welfare rates at current levels to assist as many people as possible. I think that that can be well explained to the members in this House and to the people of our province, because we have at the same time recognized the importance of the Individual Opportunity Plan in rehabilitation of our unemployed. Approximately $4.68 million, representing a 6 percent increase over the 1982-83 expenditures, will be directed to this end. In 1983-84 continued emphasis will be placed on providing income assistance to persons in need and on promoting client independence.

In view of the government's financial restraints and in the spirit of ensuring that as many needy British Columbians as possible are provided with essential social services, my ministry is making some program changes. The critical core programs — and I mean those which are truly life-support programs in this province for very many people — will not be changed; we will be preserving them. The GAIN program, the Individual Opportunity Plan, our Pharmacare program, our family and child protection services and Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters will all be preserved, Mr. Chairman. Some supplementary programs which were introduced in these most recent years must be reduced in scope, and some of them, unfortunately, have had to be sacrificed altogether. These scaled-down areas include a variety of community projects and some specialized and consultative services. At this point I would like to stress the fact that recent criticism from partisan critics about program cuts has been most misleading. The implication has been that many Human Resources services in the area of child protection and other family services are no longer available. This is not the case. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[5:30]

In the area of child protection, the Helpline for children continues in full operation to protect children under the age of 17. The Helpline is an easy-to-remember Zenith number: ZENITH-1234, toll free from all over the province. Children, parents or others who are concerned about child abuse or the abuse of a child that they know can use that service to ask for help, information or advice in suspected incidents of child abuse. The Helpline operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week and can also put people in touch with other community services. We do a fair amount of that through the Helpline. You may be interested to know that during the past fiscal year approximately 10,050 calls were received by the Helpline and about 490 of those required immediate attention from emergency services such as the police, the hospital or a social worker to whom those calls were referred. I also would like to mention that we have been copied by the province of Alberta. In May of this year the province of Ontario, who had been out to take a look at our Helpline system, installed a Helpline for children, thus making three provinces now who have that service. I have no doubt that we will see in the months and the years to come other jurisdictions copying that very successful program.

[ Page 2913 ]

Other core programs and services for children are continuing to operate as usual, including special services to children who are at risk of being removed from their own homes or communities; the infant development program, which helps children develop in skill areas where they are experiencing significant delays; our children's rehabilitation resources for youngsters who are having difficulties or who have dropped out of school for social or emotional reasons; our Chance program, a cooperative program with the Ministry of Education which provides personal care services within schools to our disabled children; and our child daycare, residential and foster care programs, all of which contribute services to the children we wish to serve in the province, who are having difficulties in a number of ways. The numbers of children committed to the ministry's care have been steadily reducing over the past ten years, allowing us to focus our resources on those who are most in need.

Similarly we have reviewed our programs for senior citizens. The special needs of seniors are recognized and will continue to be served through core programs such as GAIN benefits for seniors, the bus pass program, Pharmacare, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters and counselling services. In the past my ministry has also provided some financial assistance to seniors' daycare centres. Mr. Chairman, I want you to note that there are 150 seniors' activity centres throughout the province, and only 23 of them receive services from my ministry. You might even say that prior to the reduction of financial help to the senior day-centres we were discriminating against the balance, the other 127 who did not receive services. They met their costs through membership fees, from fund-raising activities and through local community support. It was really after very careful consideration of these aspects that it was decided to discontinue the funding for these 23 centres at the end of the fiscal year. I'd like to emphasize that that goes until March 1984, giving nine months' notice to those organizations.

Some of those organizations, it is fair to say, have responded extremely well. I want to give credit to those seniors' organizations that have responded by saying they appreciate the difficulties of the government and of the people of British Columbia in providing those services at this time. I would also like to note that in one particular area that I am aware of, where there is a membership of 4,000, the membership fee of $2 seems very small in comparison to the needs of that organization. I am sure they can find a little larger membership fee to overcome some of their problems. In other words, I am saying that although we found difficulties in doing that, we thought it was important to cover all the core programs for seniors in order to preserve them. Although we are sorry about having to take away the funding for the activity centres, I'm sure they are going to survive. They are doing an exceptionally good job of putting their act together before next March.

In the area of services to the mentally retarded, priority has been given to integrating mentally disabled individuals into their own communities so they can live as normal a life as possible. In the throne speech of 1981 our members will remember that our government first announced its decision to commence a deinstitutionalization process. At that time a commitment was made to help increase local supports and services for the retarded, thereby facilitating their transition from large residential facilities like Glendale, Woodlands and Tranquille to community-based services. This commitment is consistent with the principles of normalization which have been prevalent throughout North America since 1969. Normalization refers to the possibility of mentally retarded persons living as close to a normal life as possible.

Concerned parents of retarded people, community groups and associations for the mentally retarded have for many years been urging governments to change their concept of traditional institutionalized care for the retarded. In response, our government has stepped up development of community resources. We support a number of services and resources in communities to meet the needs of retarded people, such as residential programs operated by non-profit societies but financed by the government; proprietary boarding homes; semi-independent living homes; supervised apartment living; vocational training centres; and self-help programs which assist people with self-care, community and home management skills. In addition, many communities have achievement centres offering day programs to assist our retarded people to develop or improve their social and work skills.

At the same time as it helps develop these community resources, my ministry has begun the deinstitutionalizing process for Tranquille in Kamloops. Tranquille will close in December 1984, and planning for residents is well underway. The plans being developed for each resident will include a combination of some of the resources and services I have just mentioned, specific to the needs of the individual. Parents and families will be involved in the planning process, as will the local societies and community associations which are developing still more community supports. The needs and capabilities of each resident are being considered in the planning, along with the locale of the family and the available resources in a particular community. Wherever possible, residents will be placed near or in their own home communities, depending on their specific needs. The closure of Tranquille in 1984 will be a positive step, paralleled by continuing development of supports at the community level. The challenge is there for us all to make normalization work for our fellow citizens who are mentally handicapped.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Reductions in supplementary programs necessarily have an effect on ministry staff. My senior officials and I have been acutely aware of the difficulties that such downsizing may cause, and we've continued to be caring and responsible in our response. Despite partisan comments to the contrary, our intention has always been to make every effort possible to offer to affected staff from redundant positions vacant positions for which they are qualified.

In closing my remarks regarding the Ministry of Human Resources, I would just like to say that one of the bright spots on the horizon for our ministry this year is that at long last we are going to be able to put our enforcement-of-maintenance program into effect at the beginning of the year. I really believe that will be welcome news to so many deserted spouses who have the burden of caring for children under very difficult circumstances and with very limited means. I'm very proud of that fact, and the fact that in difficult times our government is going to be able to accomplish those goals.

Mr. Chairman, very quickly, and just in concluding my remarks, let me say that transfer of public services to either the community level or the private sector is a major objective of mine as minister responsible for B.C. Transit. As such, I've already appointed a new president and board of directors

[ Page 2914 ]

for Pacific Coach Lines, and have assigned them the responsibility of facilitating the transition of Pacific Coach Lines from a publicly supported operation to a viable private enterprise. In recognition of the need for restraint, the board of B.C. Transit has brought forward a budget that proposes only minimal increases in costs, while making every effort to improve operational performance and productivity to accommodate the travelling public.

There are 23 fixed-route bus systems operating in the Victoria region and in small communities throughout the province, while a further five fixed-route systems operate in the lower mainland and the greater Vancouver area. These 28 systems will carry 110 million riders this year. The provincial share of costs is estimated to be $79.5 million, or 2 1/2 percent over expenditures for 1982-83. This includes the revenue supplement of $1.6 million for users of the 20 custom transit and para-transit systems in the province that provide services for elderly and disabled British Columbians. I hope all members of this House understand what a remarkable service this has been for our disabled and elderly in the province of British Columbia.

On April 1, 1983, regional transit commissions of locally elected mayors and aldermen were instituted in Vancouver and Victoria. This administrative reorganization has resulted in an overall saving of $7.1 million in 1983-84, by centralizing planning functions previously carried out at regional districts. Without this reorganization the province's share of costs would have been considerably higher than the estimated $79.5 million.

Although it is not a part of these estimates, the newest link to the Vancouver regional transit system also merits mention. The ALRT system was approved in March 1981, and commencing January 1986 will be available to carry up to 30 million passengers annually. This fast, efficient and economical system spans 21.4 kilometres in the first phase of the line, which will run from downtown Vancouver to New Westminster. To date, ALRT has employed approximately 820 British Columbians, and has involved predominant British Columbia industry in its construction. Vancouver rapid transit will provide one more link in a fully integrated transit service for the lower mainland region.

As I conclude my remarks about the Ministry of Human Resources and British Columbia Transit I'd like to take a moment to commend the staff of the ministry: my deputy, Mr. John Noble, my very strong and able executive staff, and all of those at the line level who, because of their dedication, during these particularly trying and stressful economic times have reached out to help many people. I have had every cooperation from them, and am very confident that with their assistance my ministry will meet the challenge of maintaining a high quality — if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, the highest quality in this nation — of social services in this nation at limited cost to those who pay the bill, the taxpayers of our province. I am pleased to respond to the Ministry of Human Resources as we review its estimates.

MR. BARNES: I want to thank the minister for her prepared statement which was delivered in typical, dispassionate, cold-facts form. There's very little that I can do to....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who makes up your goofy outfits?

MR. BARNES: Our Premier interjects.

I look forward to being the critic for this ministry. Certainly it's a challenge. As you can tell from the minister's remarks, there are lots of departments and details to consider. The people of British Columbia and I would have been well served had the minister issued a copy of her statement a few days in advance in order to address some of the specific questions that she raised. Being as it is in this House, we don't benefit from advance notice of very much that goes on, and most certainly not the people's business.

I'm reflecting, Mr. Chairman, on the facts. We know that we're in for a fight on this side of this House. The people of British Columbia were served notice on July 7 that they had had their last say on May 5. So it is with sadness that I stand here to respond to the minister's remarks and to attempt to make a statement with respect to the immense Ministry of Human Resources. This thirty-third parliament of British Columbia will no doubt go down in history as having modified the democratic parliamentary system as it has been known in this province over the years.

[5:45]

If we think carefully, Mr. Chairman, of just what the government said in the throne speech, and has been saying all along, it is that it believes that people have a right to suffer as well as to do well in this province. That is an unfortunate philosophy — an especially unfortunate philosophy for the Minister of Human Resources, who perhaps has more statutes to administer than any other minister in the government. There are at least half a dozen major pieces of legislation: family and child services legislation, child paternity and support, Human Resources facilities — and the act itself is an immense and important document — adoption, family relations, programs for the elderly, all coming under this ministry. It's a tremendous job, and one that I certainly would not like to downplay by being trivial. I know that that minister has had this responsibility for some time, and I believe that in her own mind she is doing the best she can. The problem I have is that it's almost impossible to run the Ministry of Human Resources the same as you would a normal commercial enterprise. You are, by necessity, dealing with constantly changing variables — people. They do not remain the same from one second to the next, and it definitely is not within the purview or potential of a minister, any minister, regardless of ability, sincerity, determination, goodwill and all of the advice from her cabinet colleagues.... You must have contact with those people in a direct way, and that's probably the most important problem. We don't want to get bogged down in one detail after the next. We're talking philosophy; we're talking fundamentals. This is what I am concerned about.

The people of British Columbia are the one and the same: they're all resources of this province and they are the voters. They have to have the ability to look after the future voters and those who have passed through the workforce and through our various institutions and systems and who reach the age of retirement. It's sort of like the cradle-to-the-grave philosophy. The Ministry of Human Resources is an immense responsibility but one that is necessary in contemporary society. It's one that has to be sensitive and one that has to work through cooperation with the members it serves. It is unique by virtue of the so-called product. I say that advisedly. But the people are the end result. The people are the thing that we are most concerned about. I would appeal to the government, Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity. Regardless of how determined and angry we get from time to time, through

[ Page 2915 ]

biases and partisan politics, this ministry of all ministries is one where cooperation is required. The people are the ones who suffer — families, children, individuals. We're talking about human beings.

Mr. Chairman, you can be sure that many human beings in British Columbia are displeased at the thrust of the budget. They are amazingly understanding. When the budget was brought down, everyone agreed that restraint — as they understood it — was advisable, recognizing the shortfall in our resource revenues and the problems that the province was having trying to stimulate new economic activity in the community. But we have to examine that concept of restraint in the light of day. While the people approve of fiscal restraint on the expenditure of tax dollars, I don't think they understood what the government meant by restraint. What is happening now is that we are having a major, ideological showdown. This is really the thrust not only of just the Ministry of Human Resources but of all the initiatives by the government. I don't suggest that I am making any revelations. It's been well circulated throughout the various media, communicating — somewhat selectively, I think, from time to time — the activities that take place in this Legislature. The public knows that we are under great pressure here in the Legislature to approve of the government's bias, which really was not part of the campaign, I might add, although the language....

MR. KEMPF: Speak to the vote.

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if the member for Omineca is suggesting that what I am saying is of no relevance. He is yelling: "Speak to the vote." This is the kind of arrogance that I think has brought this House into such ill repute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Would the first member for Vancouver Centre continue, please, uninterrupted.

MR. BARNES: I am suggesting that it's about time we recognized that this is merely a smokescreen. While we are supposed to be debating the budget, in fact it doesn't really matter. It's a charade, because this government has the money it needs — it got it through interim supply. It has $1.6 billion duped up to look like they're going to be overexpended by that amount — and we feel that there are games being played there. So here we are debating the estimates. I would like some of those cabinet ministers to stand up and say: "We haven't spent any of the money yet because we have to debate the estimates and we want to be sure that what we do is approved and that everyone has an opportunity to make some constructive comments about those expenditures." It's just a charade. There is nothing that I or anyone else have to say in here that will make any difference. It will make no difference whatsoever, Mr. Chairman, so there is cause for concern on this side of the House. We've sat, we've listened and we've tried to be responsible, but 125,000 people have tried to speak to this government at three different times. One time it was 25,000 out here on the lawn; another time there were 50,000 at Empire Stadium in Vancouver; 50,000 to 70,000 were in front of the Vancouver Hotel just last week when you were having your convention — all people trying to communicate to a government that says it cares.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, I'm merely one member speaking, from the impression that I have of what this government is doing. I do not have to answer for what this government is doing. The government, I'm sure, is quite aware of what it's doing, and it is quite capable, I'm sure, of looking after itself in the usual way, through the high-handed dictatorship of an executive council that turned its back on the people of British Columbia on May 5 and no longer believes in communication. It no longer believes in listening.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, if they're confused, it's not by any statements that I've been making, because I've been doing a lot of listening, and I'm sure that I've been doing a lot of reading of the same kinds of complaints that the public has of the minister and of her actions. But, Mr. Chairman, it was curious as well that the minister, in her statement, did not outline the programs that she had authorized to be eliminated, downsized, cut, cut back, or whatever she felt was required. Nor did she indicate to the House the line of communication she used by way of consultative purposes in order to ensure that she was fulfilling her mandate as Minister of Human Resources responsibly.

So those are some of the things that we in the opposition are concerned about, although, as I've said, Mr. Chairman, there doesn't seem to be really any opportunity of having any effective input, because staff have been fired. I think the publicized figure is something like 600 staff laid off, fired, terminated. In some cases there is a question as to whether they were layoffs that were illegal. But in any event, some 600 people have been terminated throughout the various departments within the ministry, and the government has unilaterally, through the minister, terminated many programs. I'm going to briefly read a few for the benefit of those members who haven't had an opportunity to hear them before.

The community involvement program, as the Chairman knows, was publicized as being one of the most important features in terms of maximizing the use of volunteers and maximizing the use of the Canada Assistance funds that were available. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this program primarily assisted people in need, who were on fixed incomes — mainly unemployed people, disabled persons and people who required this extra $50 to make the difference between having a semblance of respectability in their lifestyles and being far below the poverty line. The $50 per month program was terminated. In fact, cancelling that program for some 2,600 volunteers is probably only saving the government some half a million dollars.

Over the years I have listened to minister after minister try and impress upon us the importance of volunteer programs, people doing things for themselves. In fact, one of the main thrusts on behalf of that minister has been to recommend to the public that they get involved in self-help programs and that they do things for themselves. She herself is pushing for volunteerism.

In light of the time — I'm not certain of the government's plan — I will just continue to try to get a few of the discontinued programs on the record. The minister referred to day-care centres for seniors — she indicated 23, I believe; I forget the number she used — that were self-supporting and didn't need government assistance. But a number of those programs that have been cancelled are unique unto themselves and are

[ Page 2916 ]

in fact administering statutory programs and information that is the responsibility of Human Resources. Although they are called senior day-care centres, they're not all the same.

The renter's tax credit, of course, Mr. Chairman, you know was eliminated, and the personal tax credit. Both of those programs were retroactively removed, another example of the government moving ahead by itself, cancelling a program before it has the authority to do so. But that has never been a problem for a government that can change the rules in mid-stream, as we have seen on behalf of this government.

The B.C. Housing Management Corporation has increased the amount of a person's income for rent to 30 percent. There has been no indication that the government intends to find ways of supplementing those people's incomes to make up for that difference. That's another cost, another burden that they will have to bear.

A number of the transition houses, of course. The one in Vancouver was, I think, at one time praised by the minister herself as being very effective, and in addition was giving to the community multifold the return for the cost of operating it.

[6:00]

The family support workers, Mr. Chairman, some 226 across the province. Some 265 positions are to be gone by sometime next month, I believe. That particular group of people are specialists. They are not "social workers" in the traditional sense who sit and work on cases in an office, but people with special skills who work in teams, who understand the complications of contemporary family life and who were doing a very effective, important, preventative job in order to save taxpayers' money. I am sure that the government has not seriously assessed the consequences of removing these people in order to save a few hundred thousand dollars.

Family support workers are human beings as well. I understand from some of the descriptions I've read of their work that they are dedicated people. They work under a tremendous amount of strain and stress themselves as a result of this work, but the returns are to the public. I know from personal experience as a social worker many years ago that it does get a little difficult, and the minister was perfectly correct, although I don't think she was being very sensitive, when she said that a social worker is capable of going bonkers as a result of the stresses. But you don't improve the situation by removing those people. You give them support. You help to improve the conditions under which they work. You don't overload them with too many cases. You try to understand that each case is different. Just because a person has 50 cases doesn't mean that there are 50 people exactly the same. They vary; they are different. You may find one caseload of five or six that would be more than one person can handle — the same as we do in the class situation, but then that's another story. The government works in units; it only works in cubicles. It doesn't see the dynamics involved — the forces that are at play in the lives of people from region to region, from district to district, from community to community, from family to family and personality to personality. Everybody is different. That's why we have specialists and that's why those family support workers are unique and that's why I'm very sorry that the government, through the minister, has unilaterally decided to cut these programs the same as it would cut some kind of commercial venture — cut back their inventory because we can't afford it, and everything is fine. But, you see, people don't just sit in a.... You don't put them in a storeroom until times get better. They keep on having to live. They keep on having emotions. They keep on having the same problems whether you care or not. The problems are there. So through the back door I think we are going to have some serious problems. I don't want to predict that the worst is yet to come, but the trend that we're in now indicates that we are in very serious trouble in this province.

Another group as well — child abuse teams. I would like to remind the minister that a child abused invariably learns this characteristic, and it becomes a way in which they begin to formulate their own development. It is just the nature of things. One tends to give out the kind of experience one gets. So if you are abused and if you are constantly neglected or deprived, insulted, humiliated, mistreated, or whatever, and seldom loved, seldom understood, receive very little in the way of personal gratification — if you always have your head at the grindstone and are always being told to pick yourself up by your own bootstraps, that you can make it — eventually you break. When these people break what do we do for them? We have some ministers yelling: "If they can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen, leave the province." It's a rather callous, insensitive...really, a tragic reality that is happening with respect to some of the initiatives taken on behalf of the government.

There are the coordinators as well, the income assistance one in particular. The minister mentioned one of her programs of rehabilitation, with respect to helping people on social assistance. The mental retardation coordinators and the income assistance coordinators, again, Mr. Chairman, are specialists in their fields. But the mental retardation people are going to be reduced in the department. Coordinators are being eliminated. In some of the in-service resource teams some of the positions are going. The post-partum counselling program and homemaker services are being eliminated. All of these bring with them immense complications; none of them are simple. I am merely giving you an indication of what is being removed. I mention the education rehabilitation programs in the unemployment situation; nutritionist programs; the child resource programs, of which there are some 24. The list goes on and on.

But what about the response from the public? I indicated to you that some 125,000 people, in total, at three different demonstrations, appealed to the government to listen. It seems as though the government strategy is to drag them up against the walls so that they act irresponsibly and do something that will reflect upon their irresponsibility to the point the government can turn public opinion against these desperate people who are demanding their rights and a voice in our free and democratic society, still believing that they must work within the law, trying not to provoke, and still trying to care and being sensible. I've never heard a more moderate spokesman on behalf of a group of aggrieved and disturbed people than one of the spokesmen of Solidarity who has constantly talked about appealing to the good common sense of the Premier, and has yet to raise his voice — a most commendable way of behaving in light of the circumstances.

This headline was in the Campbell River Mirror on August 31: "Service Cuts Cause Concern." There's a long list of responses on behalf of the people in that community. The first paragraph might be of interest. "The cut in operating funds for the Campbell River family counselling service and crisis line has workers and board members concerned and upset." There's paragraph after paragraph in that tone.

"Cutbacks Include a Long List of Services" was in the Vancouver Sun on July 27. There are a dozen or so programs

[ Page 2917 ]

listed, describing what they are and talking about the consequences. As I say, I'm speaking for the record with very little hope of having any impact or effect on this government's decisions. They're going to go ahead and do what they're going to do. Most of the points that I'm making have been well publicized. We've had very little in the way of compassion or understanding on behalf of the minister or any of her colleagues respecting the real concern that these people are expressing and seeing the need to recognize that when their morale goes down there are consequences.

Here's another headline: "Chops in Finances Will Wreak Havoc at Nanaimo Centre." "Troubled Nanaimo residents will have difficulty getting help this winter as a result of a cut in government funding through the AID Society's crisis centre." It goes on to describe those problems. None of these people indicate that they have been consulted by the ministry.

The other one I mentioned before was the $50 per month grant. Those people considered the grant as part of an income. The people on the community involvement programs as volunteers were receiving $50, as far as they were concerned, as wages. It was the only job they had. It was an opportunity to get up in the morning, do some personal things, organize themselves and take the effort and time to get on a bus or some conveyance — perhaps one of the ones the minister spoke about through her transit department assisting handicapped people and others. They were probably using that very program that she just spoke so highly about a few minutes ago. When the program was cut for most of them at the end of last month, they found themselves not going to work, not being productive or involved. Many of them suggested: "All we can do now is sit home and die."

You must remember who these people were. These are not people who are normally mobile; many of them are, but not all of them. They have a problem socially interacting and getting into the economic community and in many ways benefiting from the normal amenities that everyone else enjoys in this society. They simply have disabilities or are in some way incapacitated. They require assistance, but many of these people find that the door has been closed on them as well.

Here is one. "An unemployable epileptic assails the $50 aid cutback." This was in the Vancouver Sun on August 4. Another one: "Restraint to Cut $50 Aid to 2,500 Unemployables." The program cut has "nothing to do with restraint." You see, I am not the only one who is suggesting that restraint has different meanings for different people in different walks of life at different times. I'm not sure if the public would agree with the government that what they are doing is strictly a restraint measure.

MR. LAUK: I was going to add some remarks to this debate, but I was listening very carefully to my hon. colleague, and I would like to hear the conclusion of his remarks.

MR. BARNES: The list goes on. The Vancouver Sun of the 15th states that "Volunteers not Trained to Take Over" is not a good thing. You see, this is why I say that those of us who are not specialists in a particular field should recognize that.

I say this with respect. Despite the animosity against the minister, I would be the last person to make a blanket condemnation of anyone who works as hard as that minister. That minister carries all kinds of workloads and portfolios. In fact, it's amazing that she has the time to do her job, because she's so busy. But, you see, this is a major portfolio in dealing with human lives and deserves full attention. It deserves a full-time minister. I am telling you, even as a critic — and I get no information; it is difficult to get straight answers from that side of the House at the best of times — it is difficult after the fact, running and chasing information, trying to find out what's going on and which way things are turning. I can appreciate what it must be like for the minister, who has to keep the political considerations in mind. This is a unique portfolio. It is different. You have dedicated people involved in the field of human services, be they social workers, case aides, social worker aides, people working in psychiatric fields, psychologists or schoolteachers. All of those people involved in human services are not the kind of people who seem to be preoccupied with turning a profit, because there just isn't that kind of money in human services, as essential as they are. They are definitely essential.

Human services are essential. Just as you would maintain the good working order of a very expensive machine, just as you would have your regular chalk talks if you were on your way to the Grey Cup, and you were in the class the B.C. Lions seem to be in these days, you have to keep everybody in shape. You would have to work at it. You would have to make sure that you always have your best foot forward. That's what we have to do with the population of British Columbia. We have to ensure that their morale stays high. We have to assure them that their belief in our system...that our democratic rights, justice and procedures are for real, and that we do listen to them when they voice complaints, that we do give them an avenue of dissent, that we recognize there is no strength or security for any of us if there is weakness among any one of us. That's the ultimate concept you should be working toward, Mr. Chairman. That's the direction we should be going, instead of confrontation and anger.

[6:15]

I can tell you, if I were the minister I would be concerned when people started saying the things about my government that are being said about this one. To me, these headlines speak a lot louder than the bold letters that are quite often used for convenience by reporters. Here is one by a dean who labels the Socred restraints "penny wise and pound foolish." Well, you have to see what he means by that. You read that article and you get the impression that some pretty learned people out there are offended and concerned by what the government is doing. You see, if the government were to take upon itself the time, instead of having headlines like this in the Province: "Axing Family Aid Attack on Children...." That should force this government's heart — if it had one — to start to quiver just a little bit. You should say: "Hey, we can't take this. We're going to go to the streets and start talking to the people. If we're going to have to do this, we'll do it one by one; but we are not going to destroy families, because we know they are one of the major institutions in our society. In fact, we rely on them, barely giving them any subsidies."

MRS. JOHNSTON: You know you're talking a lot of rubbish.

MR. BARNES: I hope you'll get up and speak in defence of the ministry. I would like you to get up and speak in defence of what this minister is doing. You tell me I'm talking rubbish when I say these programs are destroying families:

[ Page 2918 ]

have you any idea what goes on in some of these abused families? The desperation? Do you know that the suicide rate among teenagers is higher in this province than anywhere else in North America? Right in this province, in the city of Vancouver, it's a common thing for people to kill themselves — young kids. Don't tell me about rubbish. I'm trying to tell you that you should get sensitive; you should do something for the people instead of running roughshod over their homes and their lives and their hopes and their dreams. It's about time.

Unfortunately, my words are just words. We've said them all many, many times in this House, and nobody listens. But you people are going to have to be responsible for your own actions; you are the government. You've been telling us all along: "We're the government; we won the election on May 5; you didn't. Why don't you guys sit down and shut up and let us get on with running the government?" Why don't you start talking to the people of British Columbia? Go out and listen.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I say listen to what they are saying. Have some dialogue and take their recommendations. Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean you should not go along with their recommendations. People have to participate. They have to be involved themselves. It's not good enough to let them come in and make a speech or a presentation, and then say thank you and clap your hands and send them on their way. You've got to take some action. That's the problem.

There is loss of hope. People are becoming discouraged and angry. At no time in the history of British Columbia did this many people come out, except for the peace march during May, when 50,000 people were down on Sunset Beach protesting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. At no time have we had the kind of reaction to a government that we've had. At no time have we had governments take the liberties against human rights that this government is taking with the rights of the members in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I appreciate your feelings, but I think we are straying just a little bit from vote 49.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, we probably are straying a little bit, but not that much.

Here is a tragic article in the Vancouver Sun. I make reference to these things because I want to try to give you a view that perhaps has been neglected because of the government's preoccupation with pushing ahead, without taking a look at the consequences of some of the things it is doing. Here is an article from the Vancouver Sun of September 1; headline: "How Not to Rescue Young Hookers." I'm just going to read a couple of paragraphs. The author, a staff member of the Sun, states: "A social worker with 20 years' experience says the pimps in Vancouver's West End are laughing their heads off these days." That's what she claims. They heard from some juvenile prostitutes that there were no controls over what they were into. According to social workers, "the reason for the pimps' mirth is a recent move by Human Resources Minister Grace McCarthy to dismantle some of the social services directed at children and teenagers." She states: "It is hard to believe that in some smokey all-night restaurant pimps actually sit around chuckling over" what the minister is doing, "but it is equally ludicrous to think that McCarthy would knowingly do anything to abet these people, who profit from trade in sexually abused children."

The thing is, I don't suppose the minister is unaware of these articles, but somehow we aren't communicating strongly enough. It is because we are just so stubborn and so biased, so determined that we are going to have our way, that we don't trust each other any more. Read the history of how these young people find themselves on the streets. Many of them come from broken homes and have been abused, they are without family support, without opportunities for employment. Many of them have dropped out of school because the education system somehow hasn't been able to fulfil their needs and they have simply been dumped because of frustrated parents, because of the frustrated system, because of frustrated people in the community who have not time to worry about someone else's problems. If we have a government that says, "We don't have to hold their hands, it's about time they stood on their own feet and carried themselves," then we are being insensitive to reality. Ideally, that would be great. I certainly came up under those kinds of conditions and I can tell you I am still angry about it. I'm still angry about it because you have to virtually brutalize yourself in order to survive in society. I don't think that's an end product that we should be pursuing with these young people — expecting them to be that sophisticated and that capable of overcoming all odds, all kinds of neglect and abuse and no hope, saying that if they get into trouble we are going to put them in a detention home or put them away someplace if they are lucky. In most cases we just let them run the streets until they commit suicide or become drug addicts or alcoholics, or get into more trouble somehow.

I think we could talk a long time, but as I said when I started my remarks, we've been debating around the clock. We have been sitting all hours of the night, late into the morning. We have been sitting during the day. So the opposition have certainly had themselves a workout. We have had and we are having quite a workout trying to prepare for the ad hoc approach to programs that are going to be brought into this House. We don't know where they're coming from — it's like bombs dropping on a target during the middle of a war. Bang, bang, bang, they come and hit you everywhere. I once said that the dirty dozen had a much more significant meaning than just being the dirty dozen similar to the movie. They have a much more sinister meaning because they are provocative. They stir you, they insult you and they push you to the breaking point until you want to fight and lash out, and when you do that it's usually emotional, and then you're told you're irresponsible and certifiable and should not be taken seriously. You see, that's the trouble. If you don't understand how emotions work, you probably wouldn't appreciate this. But I am sure that the government understood them full well when they did the program.

And there is a great danger in the province of British Columbia that people are going to be pushed to the point where they get irresponsible and the government is going to hurt them — punish them somehow. That's what concerns me. Whether I am sitting in this House or someplace else, I am concerned and I think the government should be concerned. It's just not good enough to govern. Who cares if you're just going to govern and don't care about the people? You should have some inspiration to try to improve the situation, not blindly but with care and concern. Sure, I'm

[ Page 2919 ]

lecturing the House; it's my job to come here and tell you how I feel, because I am listening to a lot of people. I can tell you I have boxes and boxes of communication and correspondence — briefs and notes from people, organizations and individuals from all over this province. I can tell you they're not crazy; they are concerned, and so is your staff that you just complimented for doing a good job on your behalf. I'm sure they are trying, but they're concerned too.

As I say, I appreciate the Chairman permitting me the extra time in light of adjournment. I also want to say I'm taking this project on as critic for Human Resources; I certainly must have a deep-seated desire for self-something or another — I won't tell you what it is, but you know what I mean. I don't want to criticize myself too much yet, but this is a tough job. It's not easy. That's why I would like to restrain myself as much as possible from attacking the minister too much and try to appeal to her sense of duty and responsibility, because I do believe she does care, despite what people say on the street. I know they've criticized her; they've attacked her; they've said things that probably don't reflect their appreciation of her own upbringing, her own culture and her own values, but she's a human being and she's a British Columbian too. I am not prepared to lower myself to the support of pulling bones from dead animals, or whatever you want to call it — human beings who are going to be left stranded across this province if we don't do something. Those are people who should get the care, they should get the serious consideration of all of us. It is not a laughing matter, and I am not going to accuse that minister of not caring, but I wish the minister would address those people out there who are trying to communicate with her.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that vote 49, the minister's office, be reduced from $195,191 to $195,190.

[6:30]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 24

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

Vote 49 approved.

Vote 50: ministry programs, $1,281,477,701 — approved.

Vote 51: transit services, $86,600,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:36 p.m.