[ Page 3649 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Closure of ambulance dispatch centres. Mr. Lockstead –– 3649

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 3650

Teacher layoffs. Mr. Rose –– 3650

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance estimates. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On vote 27: minister's office –– 3652

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Rose

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Davis

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

On vote 39: minister's office –– 3661

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Sanford

Presenting Reports

Special committee on selection, Mr. Ree –– 3671

Mr. Howard

Appendix –– 3673

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are several people from the independent insurance agents' association of British Columbia. In particular I would like to introduce the president, who is from that great north country of Terrace in the constituency of Skeena, Mr. Derek Francis and his wife Zena. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the members' gallery this afternoon, we have a constituent from Columbia River. It's not very often that I have the opportunity of introducing people from my constituency, being far away from the capital. We have Mr. Charles McGregor from Fairmont Hot Springs, and I would like everyone to join me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to welcome the parents of my secretary to the galleries today. I would like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Armand Amyotte from Alberta.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are several people from my constituency. Representatives of the Surrey Teachers' Federation and some concerned parents and members of the Surrey School Board are here to meet with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the two members for Surrey. I would ask the House to welcome Peter Woroniuk, Alice Zilber, Moira Mackenzie, Peter Mandoli, Harvey Ostroff, William Tucker, Marilyn Kerr, Joe Morris, Ron Bonner, Jim Snow and Ben Rychly. I think it is appropriate that we have this large delegation in Victoria representing Surrey and showing the concerns that the people in Surrey have so that all members of the House are well aware of these concerns.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to join in welcoming the group from Surrey who are visiting with us today. I wish them every success in their mission to preserve the educational system of Surrey.

MR. R. FRASER: From the great city of Vancouver, which will be host to the world at Expo 86, I'd like to introduce Mr. Jack Lewis, secretary-manager of the Insurance Agents' Association of B.C. Would you please welcome him.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming today Miss Nancy Larose, the editor of the newsletter for the Women's Network in the great city of Victoria.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today from the great riding of Okanagan North is Mr. Barry Amies. I'd like you to give him a welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, our colleagues have been introducing members of the Insurance Agents' Association of British Columbia who had dialogue with our caucus today. It is my pleasure to introduce the past-president and the chairman of the self-regulation committee, Mr. Conrad Speirs of Vancouver. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the precincts today, if not in the gallery, is Mr. Bud Smith, a conservation officer from Nanaimo, I will later this afternoon be presenting him with the conservation officer of the year award on behalf of the Shikar-Safari world organization, which recognizes outstanding work by conservation officers. I would like the House to recognize him.

Oral Questions

CLOSURE OF AMBULANCE DISPATCH CENTRES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Health. On February 17 I drew to the minister's attention an extremely dangerous situation in which the new ambulance dispatch system in Powell River from Nanaimo was breaking down. Not only has the minister failed to respond to my question, but there have been continuing scandalous delays placing my constituents at extreme risk since that date. Will the minister now respond to my question, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member, I am sorry I haven't brought that response from your earlier question, but the remainder of your statement is absolute nonsense.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We will see where the nonsense lies in this House. I think you will find it over there, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I wish to serve notice now that I will table documents on this matter at the conclusion of question period. The documents are in the form of memoranda from the Powell River fire chief, who has first-hand experience with the problems created by the minister's new dispatch system — created in the name of restraint, when people's lives are at stake, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise whether or not he regards this complete breakdown in the dispatch system as an acceptable standard of ambulance service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there is a complete breakdown of the ambulance service, as the member said — I don't know who is writing his garbage. And I don't accept that it's extremely dangerous, nor do I accept that it's a continuing, scandalous situation. Again I regret that I haven't responded to your precise question of February 17; I thought I had it with me today. I will have someone in the office find that material for you.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the member wishes to frighten people in the Powell River area or whether he wants some legitimate answers to the questions he put forward, but I will get a response from the emergency health people, the chairman and others, and detail to the best extent possible precisely what has occurred over the past period of time. If there have been any extremely difficult situations, I know the emergency health people would be well aware of them and would have some information for me to give to that member. I will attempt to get that information as quickly as possible, but I just wish the member would use less inflammatory language for a situation with which he is not intimately familiar.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, there's a minister who doesn't know what's happening in his own ministry. We have people....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 3650 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, you allowed that member to get away with editorial remarks, and I demand that right myself in this House: a minister who doesn't know how to administer his own ministry!

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask leave of the House to table this document, which will refute those ridiculous statements the minister just made. Will the minister advise why he closed the Powell River ambulance dispatch system centre without ensuring that an adequate system was in place and completely tested for operating effectiveness? Mr. Speaker, this matter does not pertain only to the area of Powell River; it's only because of the close situations we've had that I'm raising it in terms of Powell River. It applies throughout the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I now ask for leave to table this document to enlighten the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: At the conclusion of question period, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you know the rules?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I know the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is question period, and the members are familiar with the rules that guide us for this very short period of time.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit answers to two members of the House regarding the sale of PCL. You will recall that on February 27 I had a question from the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) regarding the sale of the assets of Pacific Coach Lines, which has been sold to three bidders. I would like to respond to that and then to the member for Victoria in another question.

[2:15]

Details relating to the sale of assets of PCL are as follows: Maverick Coach Lines –– 14 buses, $756,000; spare components and parts, $22,000; two hydraulic hoists, $2,100; PCL (1984) Ltd. –– 32 buses, $1,627,000; three non-passenger vehicles, $17,000; maintenance shop equipment, tools etc., $25,000; Gray Line of Victoria –– 26 buses, $758,000. It should be noted that in all three agreements for sale the purchase price of the buses is in excess of their current book value and an "orderly disposal" appraisal recently commissioned by the company. I would like to interpret that, if you would like. The name of the purchaser, Maverick Coach Lines.... The net book value was $487,185; appraised value, $663,500; selling price, $756,000. I can give those details in written form to the member later to save time in question period.

Pacific Coach Lines (1984) Ltd. have also agreed to purchase spare parts up to a value of $200,000 and office furniture and equipment up to a value of $2,500. Gray Line of Victoria have agreed to purchase spare parts up to a value of $100,000 and office furniture and equipment up to a value of $30,000. Sale of spare parts is to be at 50 percent of a Pacific Coach Lines inventory evaluation, while sale of office furniture and equipment is to be at wholesale fair market value. Details relating to these sales are under negotiation at the present time.

It should be noted that while the purchase price on assets sold today is less than the total worth of the company as reported in Public Accounts, only a small portion of Pacific Coach Lines assets have been sold. Indeed, the largest single item on the company's assets balance sheet is more than $5 million in the capital replacement fund. These moneys, along with other cash accounts of Pacific Coach Lines, less any associated cost, will be returned to government following the windup of the company.

Only fixed assets have been sold. The total book value of these assets as reported March 31, 1983, is $4,552,976; moreover, this amount includes land and buildings valued at $1,163,352 which are yet to be sold. In addition 41 buses remain to be sold along with the still considerable inventory of spare parts and office furniture and equipment. I will endeavour to keep the House informed, Mr. Speaker, as these sales are completed.

The principals in Pacific Coach Lines (1984) Ltd., which intends to operate the cross-water route between Vancouver and Victoria, are W.W. Watson, now assistant general manager with PCL; Bjorn Bjornson, now PCL comptroller; and D.W. Gordon Levett, who is a former employee of PCL.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know it should happen at the end of question period, but at the rate we're going we may not get there.

The minister is taking advantage of question period to give lengthy, detailed answers to a question, which by your own ruling some time ago, Mr. Speaker.... If they are to be of that nature, then they should be considered as if they are returns filed to questions and dealt with after question period instead of taking up the time of question period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, when a member asks a technical question during the oral question period, needless to say it is one which will require a lengthy answer in some instances. We have an order paper here on which members of the opposition can ask technical questions. Only 30 questions have been asked this session –– 26 of them by Social Credit members and only four by members of the opposition. If they want to ask questions during oral question period that rightfully belong on the order paper, they'd better be prepared to accept the answers during oral question period as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will undertake to address this matter at the conclusion of question period.

TEACHER LAYOFFS

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I serve notice that I'd like to participate in that little debate after question period. I don't want to take any more of the time, because at least 25 percent of the question period has been taken up by that answer, which could have been given earlier.

I have a question to the Minister of Education. In view of the developing crisis in School District 33 and to avoid major layoffs, has the minister decided to meet with the Surrey School Board to discuss the granting of emergency aid of $1 million under section 6 of the Education (Interim) Finance Act, which he is permitted to do?

[ Page 3651 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is referring to School District 36 and not 33.

MR. ROSE: Did I say 33?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It was close, but it wasn't close enough.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member is referring to some discussions he had with the group of people who arrived today from Surrey. I also had the opportunity to meet them. Of all the matters which were raised, there is one specific point which my ministry is now examining, and that is the statement that the pupil-teacher ratio will exceed the provincial objective in September of 1984, thereby causing some degree of hardship. With respect to the item on employment, I have to mention, with all deference and due respect to those involved, that I don't know of any other school district in British Columbia that negotiated a mid-term layoff — in this particular case, in the middle of March. It's causing some difficulties, I confess, but that's a matter for the school board and their administration; that's what they're elected to do.

MR. ROSE: It's a very interesting reply, and I agree that the PTR is way up in Surrey. The minister is attempting to blame the Surrey School Board, but he should recall that he is cutting the Surrey School Board 0.66 percent in the next three years while the expected growth is over 9 percent. I'd like to ask the minister if he would reconsider. The board has submitted a detailed brief to the government, and I think he should meet the school board and give them some kind of indication of what steps, if any, he intends to implement in order to reduce the very harsh impact of his policies on education in Surrey and also in other districts.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to all other districts, there are a very few which are having some difficulty but are succeeding. Surrey has advanced one particular problem, because the enrolment is in fact increasing, probably by about 1,000 between this time and a similar time next year.

With respect to the budget, the amount being given to Surrey is 100.5 percent of the 1983 amount. That's point number one. In addition to that amount, when we refer to the actual amount of money advanced to the district, through the application of other funds as well as local taxation, the amount of the budget is going to be $93.44 million. The budget for last year — and I'd like to be sure on this — was $91.383 million. This year the basic budget is $91.874 million plus the provisions made for phase-in allowance, so it's in excess of $93 million. I don't dispute that there are some difficulties; that's to be expected in every district. Some are coping, in my view, much better than others. They've left their brief with me, and we're examining the brief. As a matter of fact, I raised the matter of PTR in my original answer. It is alleged to be in excess of 19.1 and is something we're going to address.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, during question period the Chair interrupted the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) on a point of order, and I regret that the minister had not apparently completed the statement being made in response. If that could be completed, hon. members, I will address the other point of order as I indicated.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I had completed my response to the member for Atlin. What is outstanding is my response to the member for Victoria. I will do that in question period within the next few days, or whenever the member for Victoria wishes that response to be made within question period. I'd be very pleased to bring it back to the House at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before going to our next point of business, the Chair must observe that not only are we fixed by rules in question period, but there is also a spirit of question period. It is not the intention of the Chair to adversely affect question period by strictly ruling on the rules that bind us in question period. As I have stated before, if that were the case, then in effect we would virtually have no question period. In the same breath, it is incumbent upon both those members who are asking questions and those members who are responding to questions to consider the rules that guide us so that we can effectively carry out the duties that we are engaged upon, to the best of our ability, bearing in mind the rules which do guide us.

I would commend that the spirit of question period be as important as the rules that guide us. I thank members for their cooperation in that undertaking.

MR. HOWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think Your Honour probably did not deal with the aspect of the point that I had raised earlier: that is, that if a response to a question raised in question period and taken on notice is to contain a detailed technical answer, such as a series of figures, et cetera, such a reply — as the Chair on another occasion has ruled — should be considered to be in the nature of a return and so should be made as a return, rather than to permit the intrusion into question period of a long, detailed series of technical and statistical information; that isn't the purpose of question period. That is the point that I raised. If Your Honour would review that earlier decision of the Chair and draw that to the attention of members on the treasury benches, we might expedite the whole process of question period more than we have to date.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is incumbent upon the Chair at this time to point out that I do not believe a ruling had been made. It had been advised that that would possibly be the way to go, but a specific ruling had not been made. That again is something that the individual member who is either asking the question or responding to the question — either himself or herself — must take into account. Possibly it is a matter that should be addressed in another forum. I am bound by the rules that I have before me. If it is wished that those rules be changed, then there is a course open to members so to do.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, a number of ministers have given replies at the conclusion of the question period — long and detailed replies to long and detailed questions requiring statistics. This side has not objected to that. Rather than rule out a minister giving a reply during question period even if the minister is blatantly or apparently attempting to eat the clock up of all of question period, I respectfully suggest that the Speaker have the power to ignore the clock for the time used — which might well have been used following the question period — and extend the period by that time.

[ Page 3652 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that today during question period, when my colleague the Minister of Human Resources stood to reply to that question, there were no questions on the other side; there were no other members standing. It's a perfectly good use of question period.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of cooperation to which you refer, inasmuch as I was the member involved in giving a response to an oral question, may I just say that in the future, if any member who is asked a question in this House deems that it will be a very lengthy answer, perhaps it should be incumbent.... I take the full responsibility for that. It's incumbent upon me, as the responder to that member, to say that it will be a very lengthy and detailed question that would be best put on the order paper, and if you will do so I will then respond through the order paper. I would be glad to do that. But you see, when a question is asked within the oral question period, it seems to me the response should be given in kind. I expect that's what the opposition wishes of this side of the House, and we are only trying to be cooperative.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to table the documents that I used as a basis for forming my questions during this question period?

[2:30]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who wrote them, John Mika?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Emergency Health Services people, the Mayor of Powell River, the Fire Chief of Powell River. Big mouth!

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 27: minister's office, $185,567.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, just prior to adjournment at the lunch hour the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) raised a couple of matters, including order-in-council appointees. I have the number within the minister's office, and I assume that's what he wants. One could hide behind the technicality and say that all orders-in-council are public. I do not have the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask all hon. members, particularly the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), if we could have some courtesy extended to the minister and to other members who wish to participate in this committee debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I find it very distracting. If I am to accurately report on my estimates and participate in the debate of committee, then I think all members should show courtesy or get the hell out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good point.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It happens on both sides.

The member asked about the number of appointments by order-in-council: two executive assistants, the principal secretary, a second clerk-steno and myself, for a total of five in my office. In the chaos of starting the committee this afternoon, I indicated that I do not have the number of order-in-council appointees for the ministry, which includes the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister. I don't know if the member wanted that. The number of FTEs within my office total six, and the number of order-in-council appointments are five.

My assistant deputy minister will just guide me through some of this with respect to FTEs in total, because they are broken down by division of the ministry. The Treasury Board staff would be the first one, which has 64.3 FTEs budgeted for 1984-85. That's down from 69 in the 1983-84 budget. If the member wants it broken down further, the total ministry shows 1,097 versus 1,210 in the fiscal year 1983-84 in the estimates book, page 93. My assistant deputy has provided me with the breakdown by activity or by division within the ministry. For 1984-85, Treasury Board, as I indicated, will be 64.3, down from 69. When I say "down," that's from the previous fiscal year. In the revenue operations the number will be 281.6, down from 291.5; the Purchasing Commission –– 83.8, down from 92.5; government agencies –– 291.4 for this year, down from 327; provincial treasury –– 57.7, down from 60.5; OCG –– 167.3, down from 180; CSP, the commissioner's office –– 7, down from 7.5. In percentile terms, Mr. Chairman, that is an overall reduction of 9.3 percent — the 1,097 that I mentioned earlier versus the 1,210 mentioned again with respect to 1983-84. We're going to meet our full-time equivalent targets in the ministry primarily through attrition and some contracting out — but essentially through attrition.

The member also asked about travel. In calendar 1984 I, with my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers), led a mission of private and public sector representatives to India, not exclusively to sell coal, though that was certainly one of the objectives. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will be able to speak about the international marketing program, in which I take a great deal of pride — this was part of that. We had, as I say, a mix of private and public sector representatives.

Our time was spent exclusively in New Delhi and in Bombay — most of it in New Delhi. We had about 35 to 40 individual meetings, some with representatives of the national government and some with representatives of state agencies or national agencies — we would call them Crown corporations in the federal context, in the central context. We also met with a number of private sector people. The composition of the delegation, I think, suggests the purpose of the trip more eloquently than I could explain today. When one looks at representatives from the telecommunications industry, from the engineering profession in British Columbia, from the forest industry and so on.... To the best of my recollection the private sector representatives outnumbered public sector representatives by seven to five, I think. In other words, the emphasis was on the private sector. Contracts have already been signed as a result of the trip. Business prospects for those who participated and those events which flow from such a visit have been identified, and again I think I would be

[ Page 3653 ]

infringing on the estimates of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development if I identified the contracts.

This was the first such trade mission in which I have participated. I found it a very active time. I returned to British Columbia quite thoroughly aware of the fact that I'd been a considerable distance and participated in a lot of meetings. If I had any doubts — and I underline if I had any doubts — as to the merits of the trade mission program which this government is undertaking, those were erased on the basis of our meetings in India.

I recall one equivalent to a deputy minister in the national government saying in effect: "We wonder why we have not done business with you before. We wonder why we have not had contact with you before. We wonder why you haven't come to see us before." We did not go, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, to undertake borrowing. I know he said that lightly. Nor did I go with a view to entering into any kind of loan program, but quite clearly it was, I believe, a very worthwhile and productive trip.

Other travel activities which I undertook in 1983 included meetings in Toronto, Montreal and New York. I think the member for Nanaimo and other members of the committee would know very clearly what those are all about. It is important to maintain contact with investors and with potential investors. As an example, at a luncheon meeting in Montreal one would expect to meet one or two of the senior representatives of the CN pension plan, Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway — those people who also have an investor interest in the province, not those who are simply interested in purchasing our bonds or debentures.

From time to time I meet in New York with the two major rating agencies, Moody's and Standard and Poor. There was such a meeting in the course of 1983; the precise date escapes me. Again in the New York area I would be expected to — and indeed do — participate in meetings with insurance companies, with major purchasers of sovereign credit, a credit such as ours. I travelled in one instance to meet with senior investment decision-makers of Aetna Insurance, as an example only; that was in Connecticut. On another occasion, over to Prudential in Newark. That's the kind of activity which is undertaken on a fairly regular basis. I believe previous Ministers of Finance have done the same, and there is nothing particularly out of the ordinary with respect to those trips.

In the course of making every effort to access long-term and medium-term money at the best possible rate, we have also accessed the European-U.S. dollar market and more recently the Euro-Canadian dollar market. About three years ago I undertook an extensive visit to Europe to identify those investment bankers who would be most suited to form the management group. I won't take time on that because that was three and a half or four years ago. But in 1983 I visited Frankfurt on one occasion, and London on another, for the same kind of purpose: to maintain contact with investors and with those who lead our activities, our issues, in those centres.

Insofar as 1984 is concerned — and I will be brief, Mr. Chairman — at an appropriate point later in the year I intend to visit Toronto, Montreal and New York. Indeed, I may well be in Toronto and Montreal twice for the purposes indicated earlier, and in New York once or twice. I also propose to visit four or five cities in Europe to meet with investors and potential investors; that travel is tentatively scheduled for much later this spring. That will be a 10- or 12-day visit to London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Zurich and possibly one other financial centre. Because I have been urged by a number of Japanese banks and investment firms to go to Japan, later in the year — probably in the early fall; no date or arrangements have been made — I intend to visit Tokyo and possibly Hong Kong for the same purposes as indicated previously.

I've taken quite a while, but that's the general outline of what I have undertaken and what I propose to undertake.

[2:45]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the ministry has been faced with several revenue problems, and the revenue shortfall — which hasn't been characterized just by this year but which has actually been going on ever since the present Minister of Finance took responsibility for this portfolio — has led the government to rationalize certain very drastic cutbacks, not the least of which is the closure of David Thompson University Centre in Nelson. I would ask the minister if he has looked at the order-in-council signed in about 1968 which exempted, among others, the Duncan Dam and the Keenleyside Dam from grants in lieu of taxation from B.C. Hydro. Over the years the Creston-Caswell School District 86 has presented some excellent material to government which shows that at the time certainly some statements were made by ministers and government and the Premier of the day which would have led any reasonable person to conclude that they would be taxed, or that there would be grants in lieu of taxes from B.C. Hydro. Right now, under the Education (Interim) Finance Act, most of these revenues would in fact accrue to the Crown; however, one would hope that that is an interim act and that someday it would revert to the school districts.

I would ask the minister what consideration has been given to repealing that order-in-council — and that's all it takes — or modifying it, and also to permitting the local hospital districts to look forward to that kind of revenue in formulating their plans. It would really accrue to the regional district of Central Kootenay, because both of those dams are located within RDCK boundaries, so that hospital district would see the benefit of that.

A referendum has been conducted by the RDCK, so that these two areas would be the beneficiaries. A great deal of that would simply go into provincial government coffers right now, since government does have all of the industrial and commercial taxation base for school purposes. I would ask the minister if this is being considered at this time or if he would give an undertaking to have it looked at in a fresh, new light.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for Nelson-Creston. This is one of those matters which crosses into other ministries as well, but I will attempt to provide some information.

No, Mr. Member, I have not examined the orders-in-council of several years ago to which you refer, although I am aware of their intent. There is nothing before me at the present time along those lines, except to say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) and I are prepared to examine the unintentional contradictions which will be found vis-a-vis Crown corporations paying grants in lieu of property taxes. It is not necessary for me to identify for the committee, because it is a matter again of public record, but some do and some don't. Some do on a certain basis or on

[ Page 3654 ]

certain facilities, and others do not on a different basis. I think there is a need for a rationalization and a consistency in that, but I speak of this more in the context of — and perhaps I am starting to stray here — payments to municipalities. I'm from the old school in terms of what should actually be presented to government, and I have no idea as to how the cabinet would respond to the presentation. To put it simply: we are at the point where we understand the contradictions which occur — and they've grown up over many years. This government has, however, made significant progress in expanding the number of Crown corporation grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities, but we're not yet finished.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, so that the minister is clear on this, the interest of the regional district of Central Kootenay is limited to hospitals, not to funding their recreation programs and things which are part of local initiatives.

As it does cut across various boundaries — there is something there for the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health, for the minister himself, and, I suppose, the Minister of Municipal Affairs — I would ask the minister if he is amenable to a meeting with the regional district of Central Kootenay in order to resolve this matter. In the last general election a referendum was passed — obviously quite unanimously — in which the question was asked: "Are you in favour of these dams being fully assessed for hospital purposes?" That referendum having passed, I would ask if the minister would be amenable to seeing that such a meeting takes place.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think, candidly, that it would be more appropriate for that meeting to occur with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who could then call in such colleagues as are appropriate, whether it is the Minister of Health, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, or whatever. If it is a matter essentially related to, say, local government, regional hospital district or regional district, then the meeting would occur first on the initiative of that regional district with that minister. Would I be amenable to attending the meeting to hear the problem? Yes, I would, but not without the concurrence and permission of, in fact, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to take up too much of the committee's time this afternoon, and I wish briefly to change the direction of the questioning and bring a new subject to the floor, and to address the question of the $470 million payment to the British Columbia Railway for the elimination of the historic debt burden of that railroad. I do so in this minister's estimates, as the Minister of Finance is the administrator of the resource revenue stabilization fund and, in fact, is the fiscal agent for the British Columbia Railway.

A $470 million debt has been retired, a debt of which clearly at least $200 million was incurred by the construction of the Dease Lake extension of the BCR. As I said before in the budget debate, and I say again here this afternoon, I am not really opposed to that move. It was certainly money well expended, in order to assist this railroad — this resource railroad — to further open up the northern half of British Columbia, an area from which comes the lion's share of the provincial revenue to its coffers. It was money well spent at a time.... In regard to that particular extension, it may not seem evident today, but certainly it will in the years ahead prove to be very advantageous to the north and to this province as a whole, when that branch line will inevitably be completed and, in fact, pushed even further north.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, through you to the minister, to the payout, to the retirement of this long-term debt. It has taken an immense burden from the shoulders of those responsible for the operation of the BCR, and this will allow them the opportunity to get on with the job of properly running the railroad without hindrance of such a burden, which they have done quite well in the last two or three years, hopefully for the benefit of all British Columbians.

But, Mr. Chairman, having said all that, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if, prior to considering the retirement of the BCR debt, there was any consideration given to directing or at least asking the board of the Crown corporation to live up to their commitment to the people living along the northern line of that railroad — in fact, along the Dease Lake extension northwest of Fort St. James. What that railroad has done to these people in the last couple of years — and in fact, they ran a very poor service for two or three years prior to that — is, in my mind, absolutely unforgivable. We as government are now retiring a debt, $200 million of which was incurred during the construction of that extension, and we really have allowed that railroad to forsake those people and allowed it to shirk its responsibility, the responsibility it took on when it spent that $470 million and, in this case, the $200 million plus for the Dease Lake extension.

[3:00]

The people of Takla, only through the good will of the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), are now being provided with a service which could only be called mediocre, a service which certainly does not meet the needs of a community of some 300 individuals and which certainly, as the member representing those people, I cannot accept, especially in the light of the fact that this government has extended to the board of directors of the B.C. Railway some $470 million of the taxpayers' money. Let alone that, it is money that has had to be borrowed by the people of this province to be able to extend it to that railroad.

I wish to hear the minister's response, and it will probably be that as fiscal agent and as administrator of the resource revenue stabilization fund this minister will not be able to answer this particular question. I'll ask it again in the estimates of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who sits on the board of that Crown corporation. But I wish to hear from the Minister of Finance whether when considering paying off that historic debt there was any consideration given to asking the board of directors of the B.C. Railway whether or not they would live up, having received that $470 million, to their commitment and their responsibility to provide an acceptable transportation service to the people of Takla Landing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the member for Omineca. He anticipated, towards the end of his remarks, the response I would be obliged to give. I did not want to rise on a point of order; I've not done so with other members in the course of the debate of these estimates.

I serve only as the fiscal agent of B.C. Railway, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Development Corporation and B.C. Ferry Corporation, and I understand the member's concerns, but it is not appropriate for me to comment on what direction, if any, has been given to the B.C. Railway board of directors regarding the operation of that railway. I am obliged to ensure that

[ Page 3655 ]

its debt is handled in an efficient and correct manner and that the officers of that company and the other Crown corporations where I have fiscal agency responsibility are performing in terms of debt, debt management, sinking funds and all those things which go with the Ministry of Finance. I've said before, I think, in previous debates that I'm not responsible for the B.C. Railway, as an example. Therefore where they construct a branch line, what locomotive, what mode of power they buy, what service they render or what schedules they operate on are of.... I won't say of no concern to me, but I have no responsibility in this chamber for those decisions. There will obviously be other opportunities for the members to question the minister responsible, and I would also think the Premier, in terms of the general policy of the B.C. Railway. But it would be presumptuous of me to do so.

In terms of making the decision with respect to the $470 million which is part of a bill before this assembly at the present time, it would have been most inappropriate — indeed, it would have been completely out of line — for me to contact the board of directors, chairman of the board or the president of the railway and say: "This is what I propose to do. Now what changes are you going to make with regard to your service?" But I understand the member's concerns. I regret that since we are looking at the administrative actions of the Minister of Finance, I'm not in a position to respond.

MR. ROSE: Yesterday the minister was kind enough to say that he would look up some figures and provide them to me today. What it was essentially was my difficulty in attempting to reconcile in the minister's budget the EPF funding increase over last year compared to the federal Minister of Finance's views in which he stated that B.C. would get $100 million extra for health this year, and spending only $49 million on that particular department, and $27 million more EPF for post-secondary education. So to help me out of my quandary, the minister agreed to provide me with that information. I wonder if he has it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, I confess to the committee and to the member that I do not have that information. It is being prepared. I undertake to provide the information in writing to that member, and indeed to any other member of the committee who would care to have it. I would think that we would have it in a couple of days. It requires a fairly detailed response. So that is a commitment which I would honour.

MR. ROSE: In order to assist the minister, I have come to the conclusion that the difficulty in reconciling the provincial minister's figures with the federal minister's figures has to do with the difference between cash flow and estimates based on the entitlement, which the formula might or might not deliver. But I think that is essentially where the difference lies. However, if he can enlarge on this and provide me with the details, I would be grateful. I just want to make certain that the minister understands me thoroughly, because I would be interested in having him deny the federal minister if that in fact is not the truth of the $100 million extra for health and the $27 million extra through EPF for post-secondary education.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I spoke yesterday about that fact, and I did so quite directly in terms of the additional money which "was found."

MR. ROSE: Oh, I know that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think we were agreed on that point.

The transfers. This is where I find it complex and requiring very careful attention, and I therefore suggest that I do not want to rush into an immediate explanation in the debate of the estimates. That's why I've undertaken to provide as much information as I possibly can to the member and other interested members. Quite clearly estimates are made by the federal government and by the several provinces as to the amount of money which will flow, and then adjustments occur on an almost, but not quite, continuing basis. Those adjustments are made for some years out. I commit to provide that information to the member in writing within, I would think, the next four to five days.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister. I don't want to prolong this unduly, but I think the member appreciates the difficulty of a private member in this area, in that.... Because of the nature of EPF, which is a combination of a formula having to do with cash transfers with all the adjustments, plus some tax points thrown in for good measure, it's very difficult for us to find out in anybody's balance sheet what has happened. The minister can assert some things, as he did in his budget statement about how the feds have underfunded and dropped from 50 percent to roughly 43 percent. On the other hand, the federal minister can come back and say: "No, we've given you all kinds of money." The question is: whom do you believe? That's the problem.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the contradiction arises in part from the fact that the recession has lowered the value of our tax points and has forced the cash up. While it takes other factors into account, the formula is very much like a seesaw: if one end goes up, the other goes down. Because of the recession, not only in B.C. but in other provinces, the value of a tax point diminished; therefore the dollars generated by tax points decreased. The cash went up. But along with my provincial counterparts, I am sufficiently confident of the correctness of the numbers which we have presented regarding underfunding. I have no hesitation in sharing all of that information with the members of this House and with the people of British Columbia, who pay the bill and who are getting....

MR. ROSE: And are paying the other half too.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They're paying the other half too, but on the provincial side they're getting the short end of the stick. So I will attempt to assist all interested members in that regard.

MR. BLENCOE: I have some specific questions and perhaps some discussion for the minister on some of the local concerns that definitely pertain to his ministry. I'm sure he knows what they are going to be.

Mr. Minister, as you know, currently this region is suffering some rather unfortunate employment situations: 16.2 percent unemployment, which is 18,000 people that we currently know about who are still looking for work. We know there are many more who have given up or are on welfare. Unfortunately in the budget you presented there was little or no mention at all of the current unemployment problem in the

[ Page 3656 ]

greater Victoria area. This area has the second-highest unemployment rate of any metropolitan area in the country right now. I'm sure, Mr. Minister, you're seeing them in your own community office and hearing the plight as well. We are all getting reports on a daily basis of some real crises happening in our community. Unfortunately — the minister is here — we have had some cutbacks in welfare and support programs, etc. We've gone into details, and I won't do that again. Suffice to say that there are some real problems; there's a real sickness, particularly in Victoria. Coming from this area, the minister must be concerned.

Mr. Minister, I'm wondering if you would perhaps comment upon that predicament in light of the fact that there was virtually no mention of this particular crisis.... There has been very little indication from your ministry, and from the government that you are part of, that you view this as a real social crisis not only in Victoria but in the province as a whole; or whether, indeed, we can expect from you and your colleagues some response in the near future to this real emergency. Yesterday I once again visited St. Andrew's here. There are 200 people visiting there now every single morning, and that's a low figure. St. Vincent de Paul — on a regular basis, every single day — is dealing with problems for people who don't have food. I'm not talking about the traditional people who are unemployed, Mr. Minister. I'm talking about the new unemployed. Many of them were professional people and for various reasons, which I won't go into, are.... It's something they have never had to deal with. This community is a predominantly professional town. There are some real tragedies. Compounding the tragedy in terms of unemployment, of course, is the continuing deterioration in the kind of resources that can help these people in these difficult times.

[3:15]

I appeal to the minister and again I ask him to comment, specifically on the Victoria situation of which he is a part, whether he has heard of the problems and whether he is prepared to recommend some response to this House and to his colleagues. I'm not necessarily saying it has to be responded to in terms of public dollars. I have some further questions in terms of how the response may come, but...some indication from the minister that at least he feels and sees this problem, because there is — and I say this sincerely — a feeling in this area that government is just avoiding this issue and really has very little thought about it. I would like to hear the Finance minister in the province of British Columbia respond to this crying need — and of course I'm referring to Victoria — and then I have some more questions, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria will, I trust, understand that in debating my salary it is difficult for me to respond to the points he has raised. That is not to suggest that I am unaware, as a native of this community and as a lifelong resident. I have to give the same response as I did this morning when the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) raised matters relative to those who are in financial difficulty. This is the first series of estimates, as the committee knows. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will be required to comment on a variety of matters. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who would be as concerned about greater Victoria as any other part of the province, will be called before the committee to justify his salary. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will similarly be obliged to respond with respect to the forecasts and the expectations. My inability to comment must not be misread by that member or by the committee as a lack of interest. Employment generation is not within the administrative actions mandated to this portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is very well stated by the minister. Pages 96 on in the estimates book indicate the administrative responsibilities the minister has. The minister cannot be responsible for something that might pertain to his riding, although the Minister of Finance is responsible to the Legislative Assembly for the capital region....

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Provincial Capital Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Capital Commission. The rest of the responsibilities are outlined in the estimates book. We must deal with that minister's administrative responsibilities.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the finer points of the protocol. I suppose the minister can indeed call upon the fact that this doesn't come within the purview of this particular segment, but the minister is the Minister of Finance, it is probably the major position in the cabinet, and one of the major problems in this province — and it is related to Victoria — is unemployment.

May I ask a question, Mr. Minister? You talked about your salary. How would you address any unemployed person, given that you are a member of this cabinet and you are in the position as Minister of Finance to recommend certain kinds of programs that might try to deal with this problem, if someone who is currently unemployed says to you: "What are you doing to earn your salary in terms of trying to cope with the unemployment problems in the province of British Columbia, as the Minister of Finance?" I happen to believe, Mr. Chairman, that that is a reasonable question. I don't think the Minister of Finance, through various technicalities, should not only avoid the question for the province but also avoid the question for this area....

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing to earn your salary?

MR. BLENCOE: I'm doing it right now. I'm asking some very important questions about this particular problem. We have a minister of the Crown — the Minister of Finance — who is refusing, it would appear, to discuss the whole question of unemployment. I think that's most unfortunate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point I must remind the hon. member that there are many ministries' estimates which will come before this committee which will address specifically, and correctly, the concerns that the member has. Regrettably, if we look at vote 96, I cannot find where the Minister of Finance is administratively responsible for the questions posed by the member who has taken his place in debate now. Perhaps the member could review the estimates book in its totality and ascertain which particular portfolios are responsible for which particular administrative actions. Please proceed.

[ Page 3657 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Tell the 18,000 people, Mr. Chairman, that we've been told to review the estimates book in terms of the unemployment problems in this particular region of this province. Really, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hope you're not disagreeing with what I have just told you, because it is in Sir Erskine May that any questions dealt with in Committee of Supply estimates must pertain to the administrative responsibility of the minister. If the member has concerns that do not reflect this ministry, then it is incumbent upon him to find out which minister is responsible for the concerns that he wishes to address.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In this particular context of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, it is more than protocol and technicalities which prevent me from responding to the questions which the member has posed. I would draw the member's attention to the response which I gave his colleague the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) a short while ago with regard to his asking if I would arrange a meeting with a regional district. My answer there did not relate to unemployment; it simply related to the fact that that is another minister's responsibility, and I would not arrange such a meeting without the knowledge and concurrence of the minister responsible — i.e., the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Member, don't for one moment misread my inability to comment on those questions you have posed as being a lack of concern.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't have to misread it; the electorate in this area does.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member interjects that the electorate in this area misread it. I didn't set the rules for this committee, nor did the member for Victoria. They are more than technicalities; they are rules which have governed this Legislative Assembly for a good long time, sir. I cannot assist the member on that point in this context.

MR. BLENCOE: Another question, Mr. Chairman, again within the context of unemployment and the minister's responsibility. The minister is responsible, or would be, for allocating funds for particular projects in a particular area. One of them which might indeed start to deal with the current problems in this region would be the whole question of convention centre funding. I know that has come up before in this House, and the question has come to you by my predecessor, I believe, Mr. Minister. Could you perhaps let the House know whether indeed you see it in the near future, or whether this government will participate in the whole question of a local convention centre in Victoria now that a site has been decided upon and all the parties are agreed and the council is unanimous? It is now just a matter of some support from various sectors, particularly, of course, the provincial government. Is the minister prepared to discuss that particular item in the light of much-needed jobs and of course a facility which would bring people here all year round and create much needed employment on a regular basis? Hopefully that's within the purview of the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, one of the responsibilities I do carry is for the Provincial Capital Commission. That is a vote contained in this grouping of estimates. No recent proposal for a convention centre is presently before me in that capacity. I know that work has been undertaken within the city of Victoria, in particular with a couple of aldermen who are now serving in the city of Victoria. I know that the Provincial Capital Commission is interested in a convention centre. It's hindsight, but nonetheless it has to be part of the recent history of the convention centre that we were prepared to proceed, pre-recession, with a proposal which was found, for valid reasons or not, to be unacceptable in terms of site.

MR. BLENCOE: You withdrew the funding on that one.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, the member may or may not recall that we even broke ground at the site and would have been prepared....

MR. BLENCOE: But you later withdrew the funding.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The fact is that that particular project on that particular site was deader than a doornail, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: It passed through council.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I can't hear all the interjections.

I trust that all those who are interested in a convention centre, which would relate to the Provincial Capital Commission, i.e., in the precinct area where the Provincial Capital Commission would want to be involved.... I would hope that a proposal would come forward. I can't commit dollars today, but certainly one needs only to examine the visitors to the capital region this week to know that we do need a convention centre. If it in any way involves the PCC, for which I have the responsibility, then I'm certainly going to do what I can with my cabinet colleagues, but until this time it's rather hypothetical.

MR. BLENCOE: Somewhat hypothetical, but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Minister, that there is a convention centre being drawn up — I think the plans are even finished, if I recall — and it's just a matter now of bringing it forward. There is no question that it's going to come forward. I'm asking you today what, when that proposal does come forward in the very near future, is going to be....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The funding for that other one was withdrawn. I would remind the minister that despite objections the vote did go through with a majority of the council, and that proposal was to be built on the Reid site. It was the government withdrawal of funding for that particular project, and the record does speak to that.... But anyway, now we're looking at the positive side. We've got a site, we've got the Empress or the CPR participating, and all those things — we're ready to go. If the proposal goes in — and it's going to come in, Mr. Minister — how do you think the government's going to look on it? Are we in Victoria finally going to get a convention centre, and do you think and believe that the government will look favourably on financial support?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the event that a proposal comes to me through the Provincial Capital Commission, which is the only way in which I would have responsibility, then I

[ Page 3658 ]

would certainly hope that it could be looked upon favourably. But I have no such proposal in front of me, and we in this region — speaking of the Provincial Capital Commission and its predecessor organization, the CIDC — have been up to the trough a good number of times with respect to a convention centre and for one reason or another we have backed away. I can only speak to the convention centre in the event that it involves the Provincial Capital Commission. I don't have a proposal. I hope I receive a proposal. I hope that by saying, "I hope I receive a proposal," the member will take some heart. I cannot give him a commitment, but I can give him some encouragement.

[3:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the minister for that response.

A third issue I wish to raise is the whole question of the economy, which I believe the minister can respond on, being the Minister of Finance. Some time ago I indicated that I felt there should be some public hearings vis-à-vis the provincial budget and the provincial economy. I know the minister has been holding meetings with various groups in the province, but thus far they have not been held in a public fashion but have been of a private nature. I suggested to both sides of the House that maybe one of the things we should be doing, given the state of the economy and the fiscal concerns and problems this province is facing, is consulting publicly and directly with many of the various interest groups — chambers of commerce, labour councils, chartered accountants — numerous groups on whom your ministry's decisions and policy have an impact. There should be a public dialogue on fiscal priorities and budget considerations, and there should be some consideration of a bipartisan kind of approach to that kind of economic public hearing across the province. I indicated that I thought it might be a very healthy process, in terms of bipartisan approach, given the deep polarization that exists in this province — I think we all admit it, and there are some reasons for it. I suggested that perhaps there could be some mechanism whereby both sides of the House could be afforded the opportunity, sponsored if you like by the Ministry of Finance, for some public hearings going directly to those ordinary citizens and people representing various institutions and organizations across the province who are directly affected by the budget, and discussing the budget implications and publicly tapping that resource of expertise out there in the direction this province should go in the next five or ten years in terms of its economic priorities. Perhaps because the government has some serious problems and this province is in some trouble — I'll try not to overstate the case, Mr. Minister, but maybe this is the worst economic time since the Depression — it should consult directly, in a public fashion, with the people of British Columbia and the institutions that make this province tick. Have a frank and open dialogue on where we're going in the province of British Columbia; try to develop a strategy on economic direction with the province and the government of British Columbia, and really look at some ideas that might flow from that public discussion. Indeed, there was some initial support for that concept from some back-benchers on the government side. I unfortunately did not hear from any cabinet ministers on that particular concept.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Given the feeling in the province pro and con about what's happening in terms of economic and budget direction, Mr. Minister — there's no question that it's controversial, and many people both in business and in other areas feel there is something wrong, that there needs to be an open and frank dialogue on what should be happening in terms of fiscal priorities and budget considerations — what would hinder the minister from entering into that public dialogue? I was hoping it could happen before this budget came down, but perhaps it can happen in the next six months. Try to see if there is any way this government, along with this side of the House, could achieve some bipartisan conclusions on the direction of the province of British Columbia in terms of economic and fiscal priorities to eradicate some of the deep polarization that does exist in the province of British Columbia. If we search ourselves, I think we'll all admit that that does exist, and in the long term it cannot be in the best interest of British Columbians.

That again may not be within the purview of what you can discuss, Mr. Minister, but I think it's something that's in the interest of British Columbians for you to comment upon. I know you'll probably say that you've met quietly, but I think there is an opportunity here for an exciting public dialogue if the government and this side of the House is prepared to consult and discuss with the people and learned institutions in terms of how the economy should run, and maybe we'll find some common conclusions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have to observe at the outset that yes, I've heard of the member's proposal for a bipartisan study of economic affairs in British Columbia. I read about it in the press before I received his letter asking that we have this kind of dialogue; it was released before I received it. So much for a bipartisan approach.

The meetings which I held, and which I refer to on page 5 of the budget speech, were — if one wants to use the adjective — "closed." Yes, they were closed, but they were extremely varied: all the way from the Education Coalition to the British Columbia Employers' Council to the British Columbia Federation of Labour — some 18 groups or so over a good number of weeks. At or towards the conclusion of each meeting I made it very clear that unlike some other meetings which may occur with ministers of finance or treasurers, the groups who made presentations and entered into discussion were completely free, insofar as I was concerned, to say: "It was a good meeting; it was a bad meeting; this is what we suggested; this is what the minister and his officials responded to or did not respond to." I want to do more of that, and I indicated on February 20 and in subsequent discussion that I would like to start that probably in August. We started a little later than I would otherwise have wished, and I want not only to move that out of Victoria and Vancouver exclusively, but to move it to other centres in the province.

In advancing the view of public meetings — public hearings, I think he said — the member would perhaps not recall, inasmuch as he was not in this House at the time, that on the matter of property tax reform my colleague the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and I held 14 public meetings in all parts of the province. They were open-ended meetings. In other words, if they started at 9:30, we didn't say that they must conclude at 12 noon or 1:30. They ended when everyone who was present had completed their submission. Those meetings were open to all, including members of this Legislative Assembly. Some members attended when the meeting was

[ Page 3659 ]

scheduled in their area; some did not for, I'm sure, very valid reasons. Those were open meetings in the larger centres covered by the media, in small centres probably not, and out of that came a very useful series of conclusions which led to legislation which is now before the House. In terms of the public-hearing process, public meetings, receiving submissions from those who are favourable to this government or not favourable to this government on matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance, I have absolutely no problem with ensuring that myself and officials are available for the kind of public meeting which the member has spoken of.

There is another avenue open which may have occurred to the member, and that is that should this House — not the committee, but the House — at some point consider that it wants to refer a particular aspect of the economy, it may, not at my bidding but if that is its wish, refer a matter to the Select Standing Committee onPublic Accounts and Economic Affairs. That opportunity exists, again, for the House; it is not for me to say yea or nay with respect to that. The consultative process which I have outlined within the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance has proven extremely successful. We don't pretend to have all the answers in the ministry. Therefore the member will see that I am expanding that consultative process starting, as I indicated, in the middle of this calendar year.

MR. DAVIS: I want to raise a few topics, and I would like to hear the minister's answer. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that they fall within the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance.

Increased taxation. Most state administrations in the United States have had to increase taxes as well as expenditures over the last year or two. British Columbia similarly, in its determination to balance its budget, has had both to increase taxation and reduce expenses. On the increased taxation side, we have a new health care maintenance surtax. It adds 8 percent in a full year to the personal income tax paid by British Columbians. It will put us up to roughly the Canadian average for personal income tax. Formerly we were halfway between Alberta and Ontario. From now on our personal income tax rates will be comparable to those of Ontario.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me for interrupting, hon. member, but I am sure that the hon. member is aware of the rule regarding anticipation. The hon. member is referring to a bill which is yet to be brought forward in this House.

MR. DAVIS: I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman, but I am concerned about the minister's intention to go to Ottawa and request additional payments from the federal treasury which, were they to be forthcoming, would obviate the need for that legislation for that tax. What I am concerned about, really, is the expectation of relief from Ottawa. I don't think there is any relief likely to be forthcoming. I believe that this is a fond hope. I see it as a virtual impossibility if the Progressive Conservatives form the government within the next 12 to 18 months and have any intention whatsoever of reducing that $30 billion deficit. There is no way in the world that a Progressive Conservative government is going to make the kinds of moneys available of the order the minister states — $300 million to $400 million additional for British Columbia.

The history of health care legislation in this country, of support for education, of support for welfare recipients, was that the federal government eventually became involved. Those are areas of basically provincial responsibility. The federal government became involved and instituted programs financed initially on a fifty-fifty basis. Fifty-fifty's great for the rich provinces; it's more difficult for the poorer provinces. The result of open-ended programs where Ottawa was prepared to put up 50 cents for every dollar the province spent was that the rich provinces could run ahead of the poor provinces. They had 50-cent dollars to spend; why not spend more? British Columbia pays doctors more than anyone else. British Columbia has more doctors per capita than anyone else. There is no way in which a federal government concerned about spreading the wealth in this country is going to revive a fifty-fifty sharing program in any of these areas, which are areas of basically provincial responsibility. So I don't think there's a hope in the world of $364 million or any portion thereof suddenly becoming available from Ottawa. I think the block funding kind of support that's available to provinces will be continued, perhaps at a diminished rate by a future government — certainly any government that's concerned with reducing the federal deficit. So I think that tax, to the extent that it's absolutely necessary to balance the provincial budget, is a permanent tax. It's not a temporary tax; it's not an interim tax.

[3:45]

There's a second tax, the tax that will presumably offset the abolition of user fees in our hospitals. I don't understand what that tax will be. I regret the elimination of user fees. I think user fees have a useful function to perform. I think that for those who can afford to pay, user fees are a discipline which prevents precocious use of services which are admittedly expensive. Those on welfare, those who can't afford to pay, naturally would not have to pay those user fees, but they haven't had to pay them anyway in this province. I think that's a retrograde step. My reading of the situation is that British Columbia, to put it crudely, has caved in; it's going to eliminate user fees, and it's going to do so because this is an all-party position in Ottawa — the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP want user fees eliminated. The moneys they'll make available to the provinces continue contingent on the elimination of user fees. So user fees, presumably, are gone.

I'd like to hear the Minister of Finance comment on his expectations of increased money from the federal treasury with respect to any of the people programs, certainly including health care in the next few years. As I've said, I think it's a fond hope. He can try, but obviously provinces have been trying to increase those payments from the very beginning. Ottawa began to cut back in the early seventies, has been cutting back consistently since, and as I've said, with its budget deficit it has no alternative, as I see it.

There have been quite a few questions asked about B.C. Rail. I think I can understand the removal of the historic debt of B.C. Rail from the shoulders of the corporation. I believe that is desirable. As I understand it, the government substantially will have to borrow some $470 million out of this year's budget and give it to B.C. Rail; B.C. Rail puts it in the bank and then, over time, pays off its historic debt as it matures. Substantially B.C. Rail, from this year on, will be debt-free, as far as its historic obligations are concerned. Of course, the hope is that it will be able to meet its current operating costs — maintenance, salaries, fuel costs and so on — out of its current revenue. That course was recommended by a royal

[ Page 3660 ]

commission; it was recommended by our House Committee on Crown Corporations, and so on. I've no quarrel with that development. What does concern me is the manner in which the moneys are administered for what I'll call the Tumbler Ridge extension. As I understand it, and perhaps the minister will correct me, those moneys have been put out; substantially they've been spent. They're put up as equity. B.C. Rail, in other words, will not have an interest-bearing obligation; it does not incur a debt to the extent of this new facility which it takes over. Whether it owns it or not, I'm not quite clear, but certainly it manages it. It runs it as if it's a facility of its very own, but B.C. Rail is not obliged to raise any money to pay for the capital costs involved. Assuming the capital costs have been of the order of $500 million or $600 million, there's obviously interest accumulating — an interest obligation of the order of $60 million to $70 million a year on top of what has already been spent. The income from the rail surcharge for the next few years is limited to $1 per tonne. So if five million tonnes move, there's $5 million income, and that's all there is. If ten million tonnes move, there's $10 million income. But the interest on that money is $60-$70 million. So I would like to hear from the minister whether there is going to be some separate account; whether we're going to be able to understand not only how this extension was financed, but basically how equity participation by the people of the province works out.

I'm one of those who believes that the tonnages moving over that line will increase substantially over the decades — not immediately but over the longer term. I also know that after the first five years, the special surcharge jumps to $4 a tonne. So one way and another the income can rise toward the interest due on the investment of the Tumbler Ridge line. But basically my intervention here is asking if this is a separate account of sorts. Is this an account which is defined within the ministry? Is it an account which we will learn about sooner rather than later?

I would like to know about the equity account of B.C. Rail, partly because of light rapid transit. Light rapid transit is incurring a debt as a result of provincial borrowings of a similar order of magnitude. Under another estimate I will want to get some idea as to how the province, which in that case shares the responsibilities with the municipalities, will be able to meet the carrying charges and over the longer term pay off the investment. The question I have regarding B.C. Rail is: is there an equity account? Can it be identified? In the next year will we be able to learn more about its income and outgo?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question on the taxation of industry in the province. The minister has said that during the course of the next 12 months — hopefully during the summer — he will be meeting with delegations from various industries and asking them whether they think B.C. taxation is fair or whether it can be improved upon in one way or another. The story he will hear, I think almost universally, is that British Columbia has the highest taxes in Canada on industry.

Our corporation general taxes are the highest in the country. The Price, Waterhouse report on the mining industry indicated our taxation is the highest in Canada. We've got a capital tax that I believe should have been eliminated long since. There are a few other miscellaneous taxes. I've been griping about a relatively recent bunker fuel tax. Those kinds of taxes don't help, they don't create jobs, and I believe they're self-defeating in that they actually reduce the revenue potentially available for the Crown. The minister is going to hear a lot from industry. I hope he is listening, and I hope he intends to listen. I hope he'll see several groups regarding the bunker fuel tax. I hope there are ways, due to an improvement in the fortunes of the province in a few years, that he'll be able to cut taxation. When that happy day arrives, I hope he will reduce the corporation general tax, at least to the level of Ontario, get the mining tax down to some Canadian norm, eliminate the capital tax and do away with nonsense taxes like the new bunker fuel tax.

One final question. Right now there is a lot of concern internationally about a new tax referred to as the "unitary tax." California is imposing it; several other states in the Unites States are imposing it. It amounts to a tax on the global operations of any company doing business in the jurisdiction — in that case, the state. How they do this defeats me; nevertheless, the tax authorities in California come up with a figure. Let's say that 5 percent of all the business that Sony does in the world is done in the state of California. Therefore the state of California will tax Sony 5 percent of their corporation income, or tax off 5 percent of their corporation income. Imagine British Columbia putting a percentage tax, whether it's 1, 2 or 3 percent, on General Motors or Toyota. The unitary tax, I think, will really drive business away from some of these jurisdictions. I would like to ask whether the province has given any thought to this tax. Have officials in the ministry taken a look at the unitary tax? Can they describe it? Can the minister describe it at some time in the next few months and see whether it makes any sense for us?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In reverse order, I think. The unitary tax, as in some states in the United States.... Yes, I have a passing knowledge of it. I could not speak at length on it, and I know that officials in the ministry are more aware of it. I can assure the member for North Vancouver–Seymour that it's not something that is being developed as a proposal within the province of British Columbia. Quite the contrary, because at a number of meetings of federal and provincial Ministers of Finance B.C. has advanced the theory of tax harmonization, an easy and good-sounding phrase. We haven't made much progress on it yet, but I certainly intend to continue to pursue that kind of tax harmony across the country to, in effect, move in the opposite direction to the unitary tax which the member has described.

We have no bill before the House with respect to bunker fuel, and I can speak about that. The member and I have had disagreements with respect to bunker fuel. I have an open mind on the issue, and I know that there are those who will want to speak to me about it and meet with the Ministry of Finance officials and me in the course of the year. I reaffirm today my willingness to meet with them to hear their presentation and review their statistics, and then to attempt to make the best decision in the interests of the province. Up to this point — and the member and I have exchanged correspondence on this over the last some months — I have an open mind. It would be completely out of order for me to suggest that I can commit to making a change now, but I will certainly receive those presentations in a completely forthright and open-minded way.

The whole question of the tax burden in B.C. was referred to in the budget speech. The member indicated that in his remarks. He has outlined for me his view of that, Mr. Chairman, which will be the points which will be made, and I will ensure that individuals in the ministry and I are available.

[ Page 3661 ]

I suppose that I would approach that knowing there will be an element of enlightened self-interest, but nonetheless I think that the process is going to be very productive for industry, the province, the people who seek employment in the province, those who are presently unemployed and those who want to see their children and grandchildren gainfully and usefully employed in the years and decades to come.

There are areas of the tax burden which do cast B.C. in a somewhat unfavourable light: that is, if one speaks only of the tax burden. But I would like to think — in fact I am convinced — that the budget which was debated in the last two weeks, ending last Friday, is a move toward making this province more attractive for industry and business in the province and country, which will automatically provide more employment opportunities. Would that the federal government were following the same general course of action instead of throwing money, which it owes and doesn't have, at problems — particularly in Liberal ridings, I am informed, but I do not know for sure. Without any element of boastfulness whatsoever, I would say that I earnestly believe that because our problem was so serious and severe, and happened so dramatically, and because we took steps early on to correct it, other provinces will, in the course of time, find it appropriate to do that which we have done. That was why I concluded with that observation in the budget speech. We may be pioneering in B.C. We did so out of necessity, but frequently pioneers do certain things out of necessity, Mr. Member.

The meetings of which the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour spoke, and which I intend to hold, will start in mid-summer and certainly go on into the fall. I don't suggest that there are going to be meetings every week, but there will be a series of meetings, which will be most illuminating to the government.

[4:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The member spoke about B.C. Rail at some length. Tumbler Ridge will be dealt with separately, Mr. Chairman. As part of the answer to that, I would refer to page 7 of the budget speech. But in addition, the BCR will be expected to pay the annual costs of the long-term financing of the Tumbler Ridge line. This is a change from the previous intention, which was that the government would pay for the Tumbler Ridge line, and that was in note 4 of the BCR financial statements. We're satisfied that the BCR can meet the annual costs of the Tumbler Ridge branch line. This is a little more onerous for the railway, but the operating results indicate that it can meet the costs and it will be dealt with separately. There's no question about that.

The increased people programs — health and so on — I did speak about in the course of the debate on the estimates, and I would be happier dealing with that when we debate one of the bills before the House.

Vote 27 approved.

Vote 28: government financial support, $57,619,011 — approved.

Vote 29: Provincial Capital Commission, $256,500 — approved.

Vote 30: compensation stabilization program, $798,725 — approved.

Vote 77: interest on the public debt, $237,600,000 — approved.

Vote 78: contingencies (all ministries), $50,000,000 — approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I call vote 5, $190,978, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, minister's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. There is a point of order by the member for Mackenzie.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking as the Deputy Whip now, since the Whip is not present. It was our understanding that the next estimate to be called before this House this afternoon was to be the Ministry of Human Resources. I expect the government, for once in its life, to keep its word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the rudeness of the member opposite....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Rude nothing! I keep my word. Do you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Subject to the availability of ministers.... However, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the enlightened comment from the member for Mackenzie, without the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) being in the chamber, we shall call, rather than vote 5, the vote of the Minister of Human Resources.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 39: minister's office, $208,514.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's my great pleasure to appear before you and fellow members of the Legislature to discuss our ministry's estimates and what I really believe is a very responsible approach to serving the British Columbians who are in need.

Before I focus on individual program and policy initiatives for 1984-85, I would like to discuss my ministry from a broader perspective. As you are aware, the basic objective guiding ministry activities is the principle of assisting needy British Columbians. The nature and degree of that assistance are necessarily affected by fluctuations in the economy and by our ability to pay. When economic times are favourable, unemployment levels and the attendant need for income assistance are reduced. Of course, the opposite is true during less favourable times when economic times make it imperative to ensure that our limited resources are directed to assisting those in need.

Seventy-five percent of clients are independent within the first eight months of coming to us on income assistance — taking welfare. Despite recession-caused increases in the

[ Page 3662 ]

numbers of persons requiring income assistance over the past two years, our ministry has continued to relieve poverty and promote client self-reliance at the same time. I emphasized this in last year's budget discussions, and it bears repeating: even in less favourable economic times, an impressive 76 percent of our clients usually become income independent and are on their own without help from the government and without help from the taxpayer within eight months of first receiving financial assistance.

Because our clients are motivated to work, continued emphasis has been placed on my ministry's Individual Opportunity Plan, which enhances client employability by providing career counselling, vocational training and upgrading, on-the-job work experience and training in job research techniques. During the past fiscal year approximately 7,700 clients per month participated in the individual opportunity plan, at a cost of $4.7 million. One of the most successful initiatives operating under the Individual Opportunity Plan 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. During more prosperous times almost 80 percent of participants found employment after completing the job action program. Even with the current less favourable economic situation, approximately 158 clients per month took part in the program and about 48 percent of them subsequently became self-sufficient. In 1984-85 we hope to increase opportunities for participation, and to do so, more dollars will be directed towards the job action program.

Client employability is also 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 jointly operated with the Ministry of Labour. I was particularly pleased that in the last 10 days the Ministry of Labour announced some job initiatives for students and young people within our province. We have had a good working relationship with that ministry and we will have more in terms of the kind of joint programs that we can have for our people on income assistance. To specifically encourage recipients of GAIN for the handicapped — those recipients who obtain benefits to obtain work experience and progress towards independence — almost $1 million will be directed toward a new incentive allowance for employment program in '84-85. An allowance of up to $50 per month will be provided to handicapped persons who participate under this program. Many members of this House will recall that this is a replacement for the CIP which we all had hoped to restore in 1984-85. I'm pleased to tell you that it is being restored in this new budget.

In the areas of child protection and family services, basic programs are continuing to operate as usual. The Helpline for children operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure that children, parents and concerned others have access to help. Information and advice in suspected incidents of child abuse are all recorded and assisted by our people — over 900 social workers throughout the province.

Other basic programs and services for children which continue unchanged include the infant development program, which helps children develop in skill areas where they are experiencing significant difficulties and delays; Chance, which provides personal care services within schools to disabled children, is also going on apace; and child day care, residential and foster care programs are all part of our basic program and services, which are continued without any change at all.

As you are probably aware, Mr. Chairman, most of the child-care programs available to our clients are provided by my ministry through purchase of services from various societies. While we've been directly operating only 22 child-care resources, we purchase the services of nearly 600 child-care resources. In the coming year the 22 that we have managed directly will be phased out; my ministry is getting out of the business of operating these resources. By decentralizing services, children and families can have assistance closer to their own homes. By purchasing services from societies, local communities can become more actively involved in promoting the welfare of their residents, particularly those residents who need special help.

Our primary concern, protection of British Columbia's children, is best ensured through the caring involvement of every community. In this regard I'm pleased to advise you that many well-established societies have already come forward to express their interest in assuming responsibility for the remaining 22 child-care resources that have been operated in the past by my ministry. With this high degree of support, I can assure you that the quality services will continue to be provided to children and families in need.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to describe briefly the wide range of programs and services of my ministry to senior citizens. In 1983-84 we assisted with the cost of approximately 330,000 medical prescriptions for our seniors under the Pharmacare program, 9,800 seniors received financial assistance for rent under the Safer program, and 34,000 travelled with bus passes provided under the bus-pass program. Potentially, 320,000 seniors are eligible for our counselling services. The GAIN for seniors supplement is available to those whose monthly income from all sources is less than the provincial guaranteed minimum level. Despite partisan comments to the contrary, I wish to confirm that the increase in the GIS levels recently announced by the federal government will, as always, under this Social Credit government, be passed along to the 49,000 senior citizens in British Columbia who are recipients of our GAIN for seniors supplement.

[4:15]

Overall, Pharmacare programs will continue to serve the medication needs of British Columbians, including the seniors. In 1984-85 emphasis will be placed on limiting pharmaceutical expenditures. First, British Columbia's pharmacists have been asked to help play their part and a key role by altering allowable dispensing fee charges. Serious negotiations are currently in progress with the Pharmacists Society regarding acceptable methods for affecting a pause in dispensing fee increases. May I pay tribute at this point in time to the tremendous cooperation that we get from that society and always have done in these years in which I have had the opportunity to lead this ministry.

The second change affects the universal Pharmacare program only — the universal part. While drug costs have risen dramatically, there has been only one increase in this program's annual deduction level since 1977. Increasing the deductible from $125 to $175 per year will reduce the cost to the taxpayer by an estimated $4 million. While continuing to meet the program's objective of protecting British Columbians who have excessive drug costs and medication needs, I point out that this increase in the deduction level since 1977 remains below the CPI level for that same period.

[ Page 3663 ]

And now I would really like to talk about services to the mentally retarded. In the area of services to the mentally disabled, I am proud to tell you that we are providing leadership in North America for moving these citizens out of institutions and back into their own communities so that they can lead as normal a life as possible. As I mentioned in last year's budget discussions, this government has stepped up development of community resources in preparation for reducing institutional capacity and expanding community-based resources. By December 31, 1984 — this year — our institutional population will be reduced by 25 percent with the closure of Tranquille. The Ministry of Human Resources supports a number of services and resources in communities to meet the needs of the retarded such as residential programs operated by non-profit societies, proprietary boarding homes, semi-independent living homes, supervised apartment living, vocational training centres, 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 retarded people in developing or improving their social and work skills. These sorts of resources and services provide the key to successfully normalizing the lives of our mentally retarded citizens.

In the preparation for the closing of Tranquille much activity is underway. Project staff throughout the province are planning networks of community resources. Staff are also assisting societies and individuals to develop needed resources. Meetings are continuing among parents, among project staff, societies and concerned others, not the least of which are city councils, to ensure the best possible placement for each individual. Also my ministry has continued to meet with other ministries such as Education, Lands, Parks and Housing and Health and with community groups to ensure that there is a coordinated and integrated approach to service deliverance.

Community placements have begun to occur. A majority of placements are scheduled for the period of April to September, and the remainder will take place in the fall. In this regard I'd like to mention a letter that I have just received recently where there was a bit of criticism over the so-called haste to depopulize Tranquille, or to close it down. It was written by a mother to a Kamloops newspaper, and she was taking exception to a writer who said that it was done in too much haste, that it should take a few years longer, etc. She pointed out the difference between a mentally disabled person waking up to have breakfast in a personal residential boarding home and waking up in an institution. As she said, there was absolutely no comparison. If I can find that letter and share it with you, I think you will well understand the concerns of the parents of a mentally retarded person and how much it means to them, and how right the policy seems when you read of a mother who has that care and who wonders, too, what will happen to that child after the parents perhaps pass away. So we do believe that our policy of decentralization and community-based resources is the right one, and we think this is the start of a very good era — and again I say we are leading North America in this regard.

Although there are signs of economic recovery, the number of British Columbians requiring income assistance increased in 1983-84, and expectations are that perhaps the current high level will continue in 1984-85. At the same time, recognizing that government resources are limited, the budget for 1984-85 has been reduced to 98 percent of the previous year's budget. Savings therefore must be effected through program modifications. As I mentioned earlier, a majority of our clients use income assistance for short-term need while they pursue independence. Because of current economic conditions it now takes longer for people to find employment — up to eight months. So the period for short-term assistance has also been extended to eight months. Similarly, earning exemptions — that is, $50 for singles and $100 for families — will be allowed only after the first eight months of income assistance, yet another change that has been made in this year.

To protect the clients who are least able to help themselves — that is, families with children, the handicapped and the elderly — major program changes have been directed to those clients who potentially have alternate resources available. Based on this concern, and keeping in mind the fact that approximately 37 percent of singles and couples are off income assistance in the first month — that is, single people or couples without children go off income assistance in the first month — benefits will be reduced by $50 per month to that group only for the first month. If short-term assistance is still required beyond the first month, clients 25 years of age and younger who have no children will receive a $25 per month increase during the next seven months. That level represents a $25 per month reduction from current benefit levels during that period. Because CEIC has reduced the waiting period for unemployment insurance and because unemployment insurance benefits are retroactive, persons awaiting those benefits will no longer be considered eligible for regular income assistance. Savings realized from these changes, Mr. Chairman, will be used to protect those least able to help themselves from the full impact of the recession.

One additional change concerns the support for British Columbia's children. At present approximately 37 percent of our ministry's budget for GAIN benefits is directed to single parents. To protect the children and contribute to the financial independence of these single parents, my ministry will commence the implementation of an improved system for obtaining and enforcing maintenance orders. Support of children is the responsibility of both parents, and we will ensure that that responsibility is taken.

I would like to say that I'm pleased to see that my deputy minister, Mr. John Noble, who so ably leads our ministry and a staff of over 5,000 people, is with me today. I also am pleased to tell you that the director in charge of our budget, Mr. Jim Davis, is with me as well, and I look forward to a very constructive debate on the estimates of probably the most important — and without all of my colleagues here, I'd say the most important — ministry in this government. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the questions.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased once again to have an opportunity to review the initiatives taken by the Minister of Human Resources since we started this session, but I am not as optimistic about the state of affairs within the ministry as appears to be the indication from the remarks just made by the minister. You know, we've been under considerable stress and pressure really, even more than since the last election. Before May 5 we were hearing rumours about things to come with respect to restraint and polling of the public to get information respecting the campaign, and we know that there was a plan that would be implemented by the government if it were successful last May 5. In less than a year we've gone through two budgets. I faced this minister

[ Page 3664 ]

briefly last fall regarding the ministry's role as a humanitarian agency of the public. We've hardly had time to really reflect on what has happened. I agree with the minister that we should have constructive debate, especially when it comes to the Ministry of Human Resources, because no one can really enjoy having to make political hay out of the human tragedy and concerns of that group of the public, who, through circumstances perhaps not of their own making, find themselves in need of assistance, be it temporary or permanent, or whatever their requirements may be. We also know that any person in our community may require such assistance at any time.

Where are we really in the Ministry of Human Resources? The ministry is one of the largest, most expensive and perhaps most complicated ministries. I certainly do not wish to suggest that the minister is insensitive, although, and I'm sure she appreciates this, some of the comments by the public indicate considerable dissatisfaction with the way the minister makes decisions with respect to programs for the public.

I have a lot of questions that I would like to get to, and I think they will require cooperation and understanding. Unfortunately, when we get into philosophic debates, it gets pretty complicated and no one knows quite how to come to conclusions. I want to give the minister the opportunity to set the record straight with respect to the thrust of her ministry. She has indicated, with some satisfaction, that 25-odd million dollars have been reduced from her budget, down from some $2.38 million last year — about a 6 percent reduction, I believe. In any event, Mr. Chairman, we are in a state of affairs that gives cause for concern.

[4:30]

The minister suggests that the numbers of persons requiring social assistance is on the increase and that since the fiscal year of 1981 to the present time the figure has more than doubled. She suggests the figure is in the neighbourhood of 113,000 people. That figure is probably not reflective of the true numbers, because those are probably single individuals that she is speaking of. If you were to consider that there may be a child, a husband or any number of people in that family, we are looking at something in the neighbourhood of 245,000 or 250,000 people on social assistance, not counting the people who don't qualify or for some reason are unable to be counted in these figures. I can appreciate that the numbers are staggering and that they're on the increase.

What is the purpose of the Ministry of Human Resources? What is its first and most important obligation to the public? One of the problems in trying to express, in fairness, the concerns of the public about benefits from the Ministry of Human Resources that are fair and not too insensitive to the problems of restraint is to be able to recognize that fiscal restraint has to be supported by everyone, whereas when we say "restraint" we don't explain exactly what we mean. Why do we say restraint is okay? Why can the minister say that she is going to reduce the amount of income assistance to single individuals by $25, and in some cases $50 if you are coming for the first time to get assistance? How can that be an acceptable concept in light of the cost of living and reality? The general public — let's say those people who are employed, 80 percent to 85 percent of the public — may not be easily reached to explain this situation, so the minister may be thinking that politically she is going to refer to these cuts as saving tax dollars in times of restraint and difficulty. That's a reasonable explanation; it sounds fair. When times are tough, we've got to protect ourselves. Governments have no money of their own. Resource revenues are not forthcoming as had been anticipated. Employment is down and therefore the taxation incomes are down. In other words, there just aren't the dollars, so we say that.

I'm asking the minister to elaborate just a bit beyond the obvious safeguards of saying that she's saving money. Is she saving lives? Is she saving the confidence that people need in the system? Is she encouraging people to believe that this is a fair and reasonable government? Is she rewarding fairly those people who have struggled most of their lives but find by circumstances beyond their control that they are going to be assisted in their time of need?

I can appreciate the catch-22 of the situation. I think any taxpayer would appreciate the need for fiscal restraint. But at what price? We have to be pretty sophisticated to understand the workings of government and the spending of dollars and appropriation of funds for various services. It isn't something that you can easily explain when it comes to human beings and human values. I've said this in the past. When it comes to stacking up cords of wood or hard goods in a normal industrial situation, it may be easier to deal with your inventory and to make calculations and projections with respect to market situations and have a pretty controllable situation in terms of doing business. It's a lot different when you try to apply full-time equivalents — or you call them FTEs — with human services. It's a little more complicated. Are we talking about half of a person or a third of a person doing a job or what? It really is academic when it comes to that type of terminology. What's important, and what has to be important in the Ministry of Human Resources, is equality of service. Restraint by all means. Efficiency by all means. Save dollars by all means. Everyone wants that, but restraint clearly has to be a feasible, workable concept in terms of fairness to the public and those people in need, who, as the minister herself states, are unable to defend themselves or compete in the marketplace for various reasons — disabilities or problems that they may suffer. I can understand that. I can understand that elderly people perhaps aren't as mobile as some of the young people under 25 years of age, and I can understand the problems of the mentally and physically handicapped who may have difficulty competing and achieving their desires within our society on a competitive basis with others. Perhaps there has to be a point at which you recognize the special needs of individuals, be they senior citizens, elementary school children requiring day care or persons having difficulty learning in our public school system. My problem is the question of fairness and the question of respect for the rights of individuals regardless of their age, sex, politics or circumstances. All citizens from time to time may find themselves in a situation where they would fall under one of these rigid categories that we in the Legislature, for various reasons of convenience, have imposed on them.

The question of age discrimination came up some time ago, as you'll recall. In 1980 the ombudsman had to address this question because the ministry was making a category of people 31 years of age and over receiving X amount of social assistance, and the person below 31 receiving a situation similar to what we have now. So you could say that we are being revisited by a bad history. In those days the ombudsman's recommendations were accepted. Now again in 1984 the ministry has introduced another schedule which discriminates on the basis of age, and against people who happen to have families, people who happen to have children and people who do not have children.

[ Page 3665 ]

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

I personally am offended, and I think that when you experience discrimination in any form it becomes something that you remember for a long time. I don't know how the government in its wisdom could turn around after only four years and reintroduce a concept of age discrimination, when clearly it is an affront to every citizen. It is not our right to suggest that because of a person's age they should or should not be more mobile than someone else. It is not our right to make those judgments. I don't know where, within the core statutes of this ministry, the minister has the constitutional right to suggest that when a person is 26 he is different than a person who is 25, notwithstanding the need for efficiencies and the convenience of the bureaucracy. It's just not fair; it's biased. It's a serious affront to the rights of those people. I think that we can find other measures.

Are we going to go back to the days when we used to do the same thing to youngsters 25 years of age and under who drove automobiles? They were assigned risks. I think most of us can remember that they paid dearly for their age. It didn't matter how good their driving record was. It didn't matter if they had an excellent record, enjoyed driving and the pleasure of the highways, could appreciate the nature of public commuter systems, and had some sense of responsibility when they were on that living organism called the roadways. They could appreciate that it was a lifeline for all of us. They drove with great respect and care. Yet those people had to pay a penalty because of their age until they were the magic 25. It's these kinds of things that undermine the honesty and sincerity of the government about those people who are the objects of these changes.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that by removing social programs, day-care programs, transition houses and a number of other programs that she suggests are going to be privatized and not administered by the government in future.... There are some answers that she should provide for us with respect to the tendering procedures used and the settling of these contracts. I would suggest it is curious that.... It seemed as though in about 12 days a decision had to be made with respect to tenders coming in for the 22 agencies that the minister put up for privatization. I would like the minister, in her response, to advise the House what criteria were used in screening those applicants. In the past she has suggested that there would be no loss of service, that the privatization approach would in fact prove to be more cost-efficient and would be consistent with the government's belief that it should not be involved in the delivery of direct services of a social nature but should stick strictly to the core responsibilities, and should do those through contracts and the support of private efforts in the voluntary community.

Mr. Chairman, what about the accountability? I hope that the minister is attentive, because I would like her to address the question of the criteria. What is the status of those contracts today? How many of the 22 agencies have yet to be contracted out? What standards are in place? What monitoring systems will be used to ensure that there is no disruption in service and that the ministry will not find itself in an embarrassing situation by virtue of poorly motivated contractors who may attempt to capitalize or profiteer on the service? I would hope that that wouldn't happen, but it has been raised as a concern in the public. When you contract something out, you either are prepared to subsidize — especially if it's in the Human Resources ministry and they provide services that are not normally seen as being profit-making programs, usually costing more than one could exploit for a profit, not likely to be the kinds of programs that one would invest capital in unless they had some guarantees and some assurances that they would be able to achieve a minimum level of profit.... I would like the minister to indicate if those contracts will also include guarantees and a commitment with respect to picking up deficits or shortfalls and, most important, that standards will be maintained with respect to the care of many of these young people and adults. As well, what will be the licensing procedures? Have these been established?

[4:45]

Another question has come up, and this one is not a new question. Some years ago — about 1979, as I recall — considerable debate took place with respect to the need for a child advocate, someone who addressed at arm's length from the ministry in a similar situation as the ombudsman's office or the auditor-general would be. I would like the minister to indicate her views respecting the need for someone who would not find himself the deputy minister, on the one hand, having to play a political role with respect to the concerns of the ministry and concerns of the minister and, on the other hand, be responsible for the protection of children specifically.

I have a question that I would like to review with the minister concerning the need for such a person. It was recommended, in fact, by some of the professional social workers and others some five years ago, when the family and child services legislation was being created, that a child advocate — someone free to address the interests of the children exclusive of any political considerations — be brought into being somehow. We don't have such an office in the province, yet we do have protection laws. We have a statutory duty and responsibility to protect children from abuse and neglect or any kind of pain and suffering for which there is no obvious remedy other than for the state to intervene on their behalf. My question to the minister is: do we have a situation in the province of British Columbia that is adequately addressing that situation? Are there any problems with respect to the present structure we now have where the deputy minister also has to play the role of superintendent of child welfare? Does that cause any conflict? Are there any situations where it would be a far more efficient and believable system if such an advocate were able to act in some cases aggressively in opposition to the ministry in the interest of a child?

I am suggesting that that is a most important question. It is important because of another question I want to ask the minister. I want to say, before I ask the minister the question, that I'm interested in procedures — not in cases, although I'm sure that there are many cases we could address — but in the procedure involving court orders, to apprehend or to supervise or whatever. Can the minister give the members of the Legislature an interpretation of the present situation where cases in family court have to be heard and where social workers representing the ministry or an agent on behalf of the ministry are attending? Are they accompanied by legal counsel? Where the court order involves apprehension, how efficient and consistent is the procedure? Is it a commitment on the part of the ministry to adhere to every court order in a precise way, and does it in fact do so in every case?

We have had mention of a tragic situation in the Kootenays that raises a question of procedure. I would like to ask the minister if the order issued by the judge at the time in that

[ Page 3666 ]

case was adhered to by the minister. Can the minister or the deputy or the superintendent of child welfare — whoever — assure the House that when a court order under the statutes of British Columbia on the protection of children...? As the minister says, it's a core responsibility, not a special service. It is a commitment and a duty on the part of the ministry to adhere to court orders. Now I'm asking: did the minister and the deputy minister and her staff receive a court order to supervise in that case, and was it strictly adhered to? If so, can the minister advise the House by whom? I would like to know the classification of the staff person who was involved.

That question raises the other concern I have with respect to the 226 family support workers who were terminated who were specifically assigned to providing support in homes where risk existed with young people, in cooperation with other staff people in the ministry. The minister has said on previous occasions that although these specialists — family support workers, child care workers in the schools and the homes, members of special teams, counsellors, coordinators, child abuse teams, and so forth — and specialized programs were not to be continued, there were sufficient social workers still engaged in the ministry to provide all of those specialized services so that there would be no breakdown in the delivery of service with respect to statutory responsibilities. I would like the minister to set the record straight with respect to having fulfilled the ministry's statutory obligations — in that case, specifically — and to clarify for the House the procedure with respect to this kind of situation where court orders are involved right across the province, and who actually does the work.

I would just like to say, with respect to the social workers, that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, your time is up.

MR. BARNES: Oh, I'm sorry, do we have to have an intervening speaker? Okay, I'll sit down.

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources related to a letter I wrote some time ago, and I assume that the minister and her ministry are looking into the particular problem that I raised. This relates to maintenance payments, and the fact that it's usually women with children who are receiving maintenance payments from their spouses and are allowed to deduct $100. In other words, they can receive $100 in maintenance payments before it affects their welfare income. That is not the case with the same kind of maintenance that is paid out through the Workers' Compensation Board, and this has been brought to my attention.

We have a situation in Parksville where two women are living side by side. One is receiving maintenance payments from her husband, and she is able to collect the full Human Resources allowance plus $100. The women who lives next door, whose husband was killed in an industrial accident and who receives what really are maintenance payments set up by the WCB to pay out maintenance for those children in the case of a death through an industrial accident, is not able to receive an additional $100 a month in maintenance. She has to deduct $100 a month from the Worker's Compensation Board payments from what she is entitled to under Human Resources assistance.

I think the situation is very unfair, and I know that you regard this as a pension, making it different from maintenance payments, but in my view both cases are maintenance payments. I think the ministry should look at that and ensure that there is equitable treatment as far as those two women who live side by side in Parksville.

MR. BARNES: I would just like to make a brief comment on the roles and duties which social workers have, Mr. Chairman. I'm emphasizing the rural districts because of the geographic problems of having people travel so far in order to provide services. The caseload that a social worker would have to carry out in a remote rural area, such as the one I was commenting on earlier in the Kootenays or on Vancouver Island or any outlying area is as follows. These are the duties a social worker would normally have to carry out: they provide income assistance; administrative; child protection; group homes; probation liaison with rehabilitation workers and programs; tracking committees; preparation and presentation for wards, which is, as I commented earlier, in the courts; boarding homes; senior citizen counsellors and contacts; homemakers; Individual Opportunity Plan; client initiation; day care; child protection and counselling with families; adoption and foster homes; counselling and supervision with the superintendent; work with mentally handicapped associations providing services for the mentally handicapped; meetings for long-term care; alcohol and drug rehabilitation, transition houses; community involvement; youth centres; Canada Manpower; foster parent associations; child-abuse teams; community education; and the deinstitutionalization for the mentally handicapped.

As long as that list seems, I am assured that these are the functions that a social worker — the ones that the minister has indicated are available to provide specialized services — is expected to carry out as their normal duty. I would like the minister to clarify how these people can possibly provide those services which she has indicated are required.

[5:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, first of all I think I'm going to go back in the order that the member addressed the concerns. The member mentioned a figure of 6 percent for the overall ministry programs. The ministry programs overall have been reduced 2 percent in this budget; the income assistance part of it has been reduced 5 percent. I'd like to address that part later when we address the under-25s and the changes we have made.

I would like just quickly to touch on the so-called discrimination by age. We did not change the age — the discrimination, if you like, if that's how you call it — in our GAIN program. What we did was rationalize the GAIN program, and when we did that we took away that age-30 classification. But it wasn't in a response, because, you see, each and every day in this country we discriminate in one way or another. If we did not discriminate in terms of age.... For example, in drivers' licences there is very definitely an age discrimination. If you talk about when you can enter a beer parlour, there is a discrimination of age; when you talk about when you can become eligible for spouse's allowance, there is a discrimination of age; in the pension program there is a discrimination of age. You might say it's a discrimination; I don't look at it as a discrimination, Mr. Chairman. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and there are very many

[ Page 3667 ]

reasons why that line is drawn. For example, from the point of view of seniors, it's at that point of time when society has decided that people can no longer be productive, can no longer be hired. Therefore that is sort of a natural cutoff time. They take that magic date and they say: "Now you can get an old-age pension; prior to that you will be in the workforce." Society and our people over the years have developed those.

But when it came down to considering it — and again I refer back to the decrease in income assistance dollars — we said that the people who need help the most are those who have children; also seniors in our society who are living on a small amount of money and every time they go to the store the prices are up. We're saying that there is a group of people under 25 years of age who have a lot more support than the ones with families. Let me name some of those supports. They can go home to their families; they can go home to their parents. They probably lived away from home for these past couple of years, 18 months or whatever — whatever their age under 25 years of age — but now they can go home. That is an option that they have; it isn't an option for couples with two or three children. We also have options for young people inasmuch.... And we're talking, as you know, of a $25 increase after the first month. I also want to tell you that we are talking about a group of people 38 percent of whom take income assistance for only one month. So what are we talking about? We're talking about a difficulty for one month? First of all, these are first-time comers; they've never had income assistance before. Any amount of money they get is more than they've ever had from the government. So if they've been reduced by $50, it's not a reduction over the month before; it's a reduction on the overall that has been received by that under-25 group for many, many years. So what I'm saying is that we believe it's better to take $4 million from that group overall and give it to the families and children than to take from all of the groups and to reduce.

You wanted an explanation for that, and that's the explanation I have. Also, I would like to tell you that our experience, beside the highest rate of turnover, is the fact that there is less attachment to a specific job in the workforce in that group; they're still trying to find their way as to where they're going to settle down. They haven't become carpenters yet so they're not wedded to a carpentry job. They're kind of feeling their way. They can take service jobs and so they're more mobile, more able to move around.

I do want to assist the member in terms of the tendering process for community-based resources. We're overwhelmed with the number of applications — over 100. You wanted to be assured that there are some checks and balances in there in terms of the type of service offered. Let me tell you that behind us is ten years of experience and over 600 like facilities throughout the province. So you say, what checks and balances, what kind of protection, what kind of assurances have you got that we're going to have the right people? Quite honestly, and with the greatest of respect, I think it's a better system than the anomaly that exists now in the city of Vancouver, where there are 22 as opposed to 600 throughout the rest of the province. Putting the 22 in the same kind of thing, I frankly think, might even result in a better service, for we have very good checks and balances on each of those resources. First of all, we have a contract which assures us that if there is anything wrong in that service, we can at any time — that's the relationship we have with these societies and these people who are delivering the service — pull out of that service and put a better operator in. It is always a renewable agreement within a twelve-month period. We don't have that in many, with the greatest of respect, staff-operated.... They continue to go on, and they have a tendency to go on. All it is is just that. It is to make it consistent with the rest of the province. Our experience in the last ten years tells us it's good; we will still be providing the money.

From what I have heard and read in letters to the editors, it looks as though we are not going to provide the services. It is just utter nonsense. We know we are; you know we are; everybody out there knows we are, but there is a group of people who want to scare the people into thinking that there won't be a transition house in the city of Vancouver. There will be. It won't be operated by the Ministry of Human Resources, but we will have the money there and there will be a good service provided.

I don't find it close at hand, but I was interested to receive in this past week a letter from an association in Richmond. They sent me a copy of the letter that they sent to the Vancouver Transition House saying that they objected to the kinds of comments that were made by the Vancouver Transition House against the services offered by community resources, because they are excellent. I have that letter somewhere, and I will be glad to bring it to your attention when I find it.

This is very important, and I have tried to clear away those things which I think are important too, but they don't get at the issue. No, there is one more thing I would like cleared up. You mention the suggestion of a child advocate. You say the most important thing is for the protection of children and to make sure that we have lines of reporting and so on. First of all, please know that there are three deputy superintendents to the deputy of child protection and the superintendent of child welfare. We have three deputy superintendents, so in effect we have four people who, at any given time, can, through the line of responsibility coming right from the ground level — right from the community, be it in the Kootenays or in the city of Vancouver — have that reporting system, which is available. We believe the very thing that you're suggesting, quite frankly, with the child advocate.... I believe we have a better, broader system and a system in which we can readily, through our Family and Child Service Act, address the things that are bothering you.

You should know that there were 10,500 children in care ten years ago and just over 7,600 today, a decrease of 2,000 over ten years. We have to be doing something right when one considers that we are living in an age where, quite frankly, the effect of the world coming into the living rooms and the bedrooms through the television sets surely must have a more detrimental effect on family life in this country than any other given thing that we have seen in the last decade, and yet we have less children in care.

I really want to get to your concern about the conflict in the delivery of services, and how we respond to children who are in that very difficult position of child abuse. I tried to explain it without talking about names and trying to refer to names in that particular problem, but because you have mentioned the Kootenays, you are obviously referring to the case which had a tremendous amount of publicity in the last ten days. I want to address that. The Family and Child Service Act, which we debated and passed in this House, put together in a very real and effective way the very thing that you are asking for today. When we know or are suspicious that a child is being abused, and someone reports that....

As you know, since 1969 it has been imperative to report

[ Page 3668 ]

child abuse. It is law. If you know of a child who is being abused or you suspect is surrounded by some difficult family situation, it is imperative to report that. So leading from that we have the report. It may just be a suspicion; it may just be an allegation. But every single allegation that comes to our ministry is followed up. No chances are taken, and the reason there are no chances taken, Mr. Chairman, is because the very tragic result of a family left without attention is the very thing that you read about in the paper the other day, which shocks everybody.

But let me tell you the burden which is carried by the social workers in this case and in every case. On the one hand we are told in a previous story, just within a week of that story that we shouldn't interfere and we shouldn't take a child out of a home. We were told by the press, you know; they have all the background. They've got all the drama of the case, but they don't have the facts. Because we can't share those facts, because it is against the ministry's policy, as well as against just plain good human relations and community relations, we don't tell the full story, and we can't tell it. But on the one hand, while we are being told we've got to leave a child in the home, we're being criticized — our same social workers, our same ministry staff.... We're told on the other hand we should have taken the child out of the home.

[5:15]

Let me tell you who makes the decision as to who puts the child in the home or takes the child out of the home. It has nothing to do with the Ministry of Human Resources. When the allegation of child abuse is made, we follow it up. Under the very act that you debated in this House, the Family and Child Service Act.... You allowed us only seven days; the ultimate is seven days to keep that child. If we have any suspicion at all, we can go in and take the child, but we have to let all of the authorities, the police and everyone know that we have that child first of all. That has to be done immediately. We can only keep that child for his or her own protection for seven days.

What happens to that child after that time is the subject of a court decision, not ours. That's very important, because very often we get accused.... You know, as if our ministry staff are running around just desirous of scooping up children! There is nothing more traumatic in a social worker's life than to have to go into a house, with all of the harassment and all of the problems and all of the pulls of emotion in cases like that, to remove a child. Can you imagine trying to do so? Can you imagine the difficulties they must have? So I want to make it clear: we do not keep children out of that home. The court orders that after seven days.

Now in this case there was a court order. You asked the name of the person who was in charge of that case. I can give you the name of the party, but I think I won't, because we're trying not to say names here. I don't want people phoning ministry staff and so on. I'll tell you why I don't. This is still under a coroner's report. It hasn't been made public yet, and I'm not about to make names of staff public to be interrogated by the media until the coroner's report comes out. We're open to answer questions at any time after that. But you asked the designation of that person: a social worker 2 was in charge of the case, was responsible for the court order after Judge Nimsick made the court order — not the Ministry of Human Resources. He was assisted by a family support worker for the first three months under the order of supervision.

I'm going to just make an aside here, Mr. Chairman, because I think the line of questioning is probably following.... In fact, you referred to family support workers no longer being in the ministry. That's true. Family support workers have only been in the ministry for the past four and a half years. It is a program that we thought was a good program. We have taken it out. It doesn't mean that, either before four and a half years ago or since they've been taken out, these cases aren't going to be addressed, because they are, they have been, and, in this case, they were. In the first three months this social worker 2 under the order of supervision which expired on October 6, paid 22 visits. That's a fair amount in that time-frame. I might say that it happened to be a family that didn't have a telephone, so they were all surprises, all unexpected. All of those visits that we were involved in were done in a very spontaneous atmosphere.

There was a second supervision order. Between the time of the first supervision order and the second one, this family also saw three different agencies, I believe. I'm going by memory. I'm quite sure it was three. All of those people involved — the three agencies, the social worker II and the family support worker — said that considerable progress had been made up until October 6. Considerable progress was acknowledged by the court when a second supervision order was made. In that time there was a BCGEU strike that took the whole province, interrupted the case calls all over the province, and I tried to.... Maybe I didn't make it clear the other day when I was responding to the budget speech — I did want to make that clear. Although nothing happened to the child during that strike — in other words the death of the child didn't happen during that strike — I think it's important to note that any time there is a labour altercation within the BCGEU probably the most difficult ministry to administer during that time is the Ministry of Human Resources. We have life-and-death situations. Just think if this had happened during the strike! Tell me where the scapegoat would be then. Who would have been pointing the finger at whom? Who would have scapegoated that? The union? The government, because we couldn't get together with the employees at that time because the union didn't give us people who could cover these situations?

All over the province during that two weeks we didn't have people in any of these court supervised orders supervising the children who needed protection. That's something to think about. It's an aside again. I want to go back to the main trend of addressing this very difficult case, because I know you are sincerely concerned that somewhere along the way this could happen again. What you intimate by that is that you really wonder if the ministry was at fault. Don't think that doesn't cross my mind. I'm very supportive of my ministry, but we know too that there are human failures in everything. Don't think that doesn't follow in my deputy's mind and in my mind. I want to assure you that through the Family and Child Service Act and through the policies of this ministry we do have those guidelines all very clearly spelled out, because we know that because that child needs protection we are going to have to be the carrier of the court order and make all the right decisions on the way. Let me say this about court orders: they ordered court supervision the first time, they ordered supervision the second time — it was interrupted, as I say, by the strike — but the social worker visited six times after the strike ended, between October 6.... When the order expired on January 6, 1984, the visits were becoming less and less, because as a family gets their act together —

[ Page 3669 ]

and it has happened hundreds of times in this province....

You don't hear about all the success stories, but we actually do get abusing parents even to get their act together and understand what it is — this turmoil that's taking it out on a child. We actually do rehabilitate them, and we can put a family together instead of keeping them apart. The main objective is to keep the family together. That is our main objective, but we won't sacrifice that philosophy if it means the protection of the child isn't carried out.

In this case January 6 was the end of the court order. We had no jurisdiction after that — none whatsoever. In any time up to that time, Mr. Chairman, please put yourself in the place of a social worker. They can't be there 24 hours a day. They didn't, with the court order. They weren't asked to live there. If they were asked to live there — if it was that difficult — we would have had the child out of that time. But for some reason the court ordered that it should just be supervised, not that the child be taken out of the home. It could have happened at any time from the time that the court made the order up until January 6. It could have happened. It didn't. I'm thankful that it didn't, but they weren't there for 24 hours a day. It doesn't make the case any less horrendous that it didn't happen when the child was under a court order that we should supervise. The court order ended on January 6, and we had no jurisdiction after that. The child died on January 19. There are charges laid. Therefore we can't speculate, and I don't want to speculate.

What I want to do is to assure you that we do our best, but in the case of any parent — and I generalize when I say this — who has any tendency to take advantage of a child....

This ministry, you, anybody in this building, a policeman, a judge — no one is able to stop that. What we can do is do what we have been doing successfully in this province. I suggest to you we've been leading the way in this nation and in North America. We have been bringing to the attention of the public that child abuse is a fact within our society and that we can do something about it. But more than that, we won't tolerate anybody who we suspect is a child abuser, and we will bring them to a place in our community where they will prove that they are not harming their child. I think that's the best protection we can give.

Again, let me just say that there's a coroner's report. We can't speculate on what it will say, but I wanted you to be assured that those checks are built in. I think our Family and Child Service Act does service in good stead in that regard.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

May I just respond to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who unfortunately isn't here now. She was concerned about two people living side by side, if you like, and one is under a workers' compensation program because her husband has passed away and she has had a settlement from them as opposed to the maintenance program for court cases involving a divorce. It is surprising to me that almost all judges in this province, when they make a court order for a divorce settlement, always give the opportunity, and it's almost in every case.... When it comes to a settlement or enforcement, I think that you could say in about 98 percent of the cases there is the order for the father and the husband to pay $100. It's almost consistent. If you saw the graph you would be surprised how very few are ordered to pay any more than that — it's the largest percentage. It always surprises me, because it seems to me that people of varying salaries can always be charged the $100. But that doesn't apply to the woman who is taking the workers' compensation program. Our answer is not to make them both the same. Our answer is to put in a proper family enforcement support system, which we have announced, and we are doing it this year. I am happy to say that it is within my budget this year. I think that in itself is quite remarkable, considering that this is not a year for new programs. We are going to put that one together this year.

So that's our answer: we're going to help that lady, who does have difficulties collecting from her husband, through a proper enforcement of maintenance orders.

MR. BARNES: That was a very helpful response to questions that I wanted answers to concerning the role of the ministry in the case in the Kootenays. You did ask some questions in your response, however, with respect to posing a question.... What would anyone do if there was a pending strike or if in fact a strike was in place and a similar situation occurred? That's a valid question. In asking that question, perhaps we are getting to the essence of the problem. Certainly it would appear as though we are both concerned about avoiding situations such as this.

[5:30]

The fact that a court order is involved would seem to me to be a matter that would take precedence over most activities in the community. Certainly it would be one that, had the ministry been in a situation where it feared that a child was at risk for any reason.... We have a child protection policy and legislation which is really pretty exceptional in its authority. It seems to override other considerations — certainly the wishes of a family, let's say — or probably any other matter. As you pointed out, once it is brought to the attention of the ministry that a child is at risk in one way or another, the ministry, by law, must act, just as a person who observes such a problem must act. So it would seem to follow that where the court is involved in making a judgment and an order with respect to that question, it would be incumbent upon the ministry to follow it, having taken the first step to raise the matter and having had the matter brought to its attention.

You indicated that there was a first order and then a second order with respect to Judge Nimsick in this case; the one was earlier in August, I believe, and lasted until sometime in October. The question may well be asked, even in that instance, if the ministry did its job — except that you indicated there were some 22 visits, I think, during that first order. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether in the second order, by which time the case was well known.... In light of some of the comments that have been made — and I can't confirm the accuracy of those statements.... Perhaps it would assist us if the minister could do two things: one would be to provide for us the actual order that was issued by Judge Nimsick, because you indicated that had it been necessary to intervene, you would have intervened. I'm suggesting that I think the court order was quite specific in certain matters that I don't have knowledge of except by hearsay or through the papers. Having the specific terms of the order would assist, and then we could determine whether or not that second order was followed with respect to visits by the social worker in the area.

I don't believe you specifically addressed that. You did indicate that there had been some satisfaction with previous visits from the first order, indicating that there was progress and that there wasn't a pressing or obvious need for any more

[ Page 3670 ]

stringent action. But there is a conflict in terms of information that is available, because if I were to believe that the judge said that certain individuals were to be restrained from the premises and that in fact there were to be regular visits without notice — which is, in effect, what I think he meant — then it would appear to me that there should be some record that that was followed. This is said with respect and does not suggest that anyone can anticipate, as you pointed out, such a tragic thing happening.

As legislators I think we should get to the point in terms of our statutory duties and responsibilities under the law, if we're going to deal strictly with the law.... Where a court order involves a family or child under our very strict child protection laws, I would expect that any court order carries the same weight as the law itself, in terms of a judgment or order being issued. If it has not been followed, I would like to ask how often it must be followed. Who decides how much credence to place on a court order? Who makes that decision, and is it a matter of judgment? Is it specified in any way? Perhaps the minister could clarify that. I would accept her response if it gives me an answer, and there would be no need to pursue that matter. I would like to know how many visits took place between November and January 6, and the text of the order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be glad to answer that. The first order was to return the child to the parent with supervision. That expired on October 6. The second order was to continue supervision, and that expired on January 6. Both directions from the court involved the direction that the boy-friend was not to have any contact with the household. He was never seen at the home, and I told you they were all surprise visits; none of them were planned. The reason isn't always so, but in this case there was no telephone, so they were always at any given hour. Several of them were at 9 in the morning, for example, which is an unusual time — the start of the day perhaps. There were morning visits and evening visits and everything. Again I think maybe we should really discuss this when the coroner's report is complete, but I believe that one person was in either Lethbridge or Calgary during that time, or was out of the province entirely during that time. I can't be sure of the place, but in Alberta during that time. So I think that until you have the coroner's report, anything beyond what we've said today on the floor of the House.... And I think a lot of it is really for general discussion. I think we should really wait for the coroner's report, Mr. Chairman, in this regard.

MR. BARNES: As I say, I don't wish to pursue any questions beyond her response — I believe she's entitled to either respond or not respond — but am I to take it that the minister does not feel it appropriate to give the dates of visits that took place during the time of the second...and also the reading of Judge Nimsick's order?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to get the order itself and make it available to the member, and I think I have given you the dates. But as to the dates of the visits, I don't have those with me; again, I think all of that will probably be part of the coroner's report. I would assume it would be, but if it isn't I will certainly be pleased to make it available.

MR. BARNES: I'll accept that from the minister in the hope that she would perhaps tomorrow provide the information to those questions. I appreciate her question to the House earlier as to what we would do in a situation where there might have been some activity taking place that would have interfered with the ability of the ministry to carry out a court order. I think that is a question that the minister herself has posed and one that I agree with as being worthy of a thorough review in order to ensure that there is in place a mechanism that can be counted upon to follow through with court orders.

The question I raised initially about the loss of those family support workers I think was addressed by the minister with respect to her view that there is no loss of service to families or to the public generally; that she feels those family support workers, although they were good and useful and they provided a very valuable service, are not required. I think in so doing she is.... She mentioned some statistics, Mr. Chairman, I'll just use general terms because I don't remember them exactly. She said there were about 10,000 children in care at one point, when the family support workers were introduced through her ministry, and at the present time there are approximately 7,000 still in care. In reviewing some of the briefs that have been submitted requesting that the family support workers be left in place, certain statistical information was provided that argues with the minister's contention that these specialists were not essential, in fact, in terms of cost. I wish I could find the specific reference, because I would like to read it into the record, but I probably will be able to have them in order for tomorrow; I don't have them right now.

To give an example, family support workers were described in economic terms as costing something like, as I recall, $1,000 to $1,200 approximately to provide that service per annum per client, and they had the ability to service 20 to 30 such clients at one time, depending on the nature of the problem. They gave several options where the family support worker was removed, including the cost of those same children being in care, the cost of detention and other kinds of services, to the extent that in some instances the cost was as high as $7,000 per child per year in cases where there had been mental assessment or they had to go to an institution for confinement. The economics of the decision by the ministry to remove the family support worker are perhaps misleading in the sense that there were, say, 226 staff people removed and this saved a direct cost for salaries and for the benefits associated with that, but when you look at it from the other end, there were about 5,000 people involved, in round numbers, who were left as a result of the ministry removing those people. So the question has to be: what happened and what is happening to those people, and, categorically, what is the nature of their problems? I think one would have to appreciate that there is another cost somewhere, indirectly, and how those are picked up is not quite clear.

Let us be cautious with our praise for the government's efficiency with respect to the cutting of these services, although the ministry has every right to be efficient and has a duty, in fact, to do what it feels is appropriate. The question must remain: quality. I suggest that you cannot gauge quality in economic terms when it comes to human lives. Also, when you consider the cost in terms of frustrated people in society and in terms of the lack of opportunity and, in some instances, hope of any recovery or any opportunity to overcome their dilemma, then perhaps the government is gambling that these people will find their way someplace — not to

[ Page 3671 ]

be facetious, but the minister has indicated that some of them were quite mobile, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has indicated that if they couldn't find jobs then they didn't have to be here, that it would be a deterrent. I find that to be an interesting statement to come from the government: that people who are not able to find employment should not be given a subsistence allowance because there is a risk that they may be able to survive on it and may stick around. The implication is that you don't want to have people permanently unemployed or permanently dependent on public social assistance programs. That rationale of cutting back is curious.

[5:45]

The national average, the base line for poverty in this country is something in the neighbourhood of $7,000 per annum. That's the Statistics Canada general statement in terms of one person in a population of, say, half a million people or more, as in the city of Vancouver. For a single person under the government scheme — and that's getting the maximum of $375, which I believe is not really the case; in some instances we're talking about for the first month $325 — that would make quite a different total in a year than what I'm about to say. But there's about $4,500 to be realized by a single person on social assistance in this province, which is substantially below the poverty line as stated by Statistics Canada. What are the consequences of people having to be that short on their social assistance rates? In fact what we've had is a reduction, not a cost of living increase. We're going in the opposite direction. We have more people dependent on social assistance, because there are fewer and fewer opportunities.

Let me just say this in the interest of economics, in the interest of restraint and stimulating the economy, and all those concerns that the government has. Most people on social assistance will spend their money immediately. We're talking about approximately $35 million that the government has withdrawn from those people — $35 million that certainly would have gone into the economy. Why is it that the government cannot see the value of paying these people subsistence wages? They're going to pay the money to the small entrepreneurs in the community. They aren't going to put it in the bank. That, to me, is a questionable economic decision.

Mr. Chairman, I note that everyone is interested in adjournment at this time of the evening, and I would so agree.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, your special committee appointed February 13, 1984, to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of this House for the present session begs to report the following are the lists of members who compose the select standing committees.

I move the report be taken as read and received. [See appendix.]

Motion approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report now be adopted.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on the motion to adopt a report of the committee, I want to express some disagreement with a portion of it and indicate to the Chair and the House that I propose to move an amendment to the motion, relating to the portion of the report with which I want to deal right now.

The portion I want to deal with relates to the numerical structure and relationship of members with respect to the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee. There is a ratio of membership between the government and opposition side that is embraced within there that I object to, not so much because it is inappropriate to the ratio which exists within the House, but for another reason.

This assembly belongs to the people of the province of British Columbia. It is often looked upon by those individuals who are members of it as being a private preserve of ours in this assembly, but it is not ours, it is that of the people of the province of B.C.

There is a notice of motion on the order paper seeking to refer a subject matter to the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee. It is in anticipation of that notice of motion — not to debate it but in anticipation that it might be moved and therefore become an order of reference to the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee — that I want to advance the argument that I'm about to advance. It seems to me that we do have — and members of the House complain about it from time to time, and so does the general public — polarization on a partisanship basis in the province that prevents us from examining fully the needs and requirements of the people of this province. The very structure in a relationship way of government members to opposition members on these committees probably reflects that, although that's not the full force of what I want to say.

It seems to me that we are now faced with a prime and excellent opportunity to exhibit to the general public, those whom we represent, that we can and do desire to put the polarized concept in the province to one side, that we want to put to one side the question of partisanship. The question of which side of the House something emanates from should not be the criterion that we follow. We should follow, and we have an example to do it with this, more particularly the historic position of the Legislature as representing all of the people of the province without regard to their support for any particular party, and certainly without regard to the parties represented in the chamber.

It seems to me that if the subject matter of the notice of motion on the order paper is to be brought to the House and that subject matter becomes an order of reference to the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee, we should therefore move to restructure the relationship of members on that Private Bills Committee so that it would be an exhibit of our faith in non-partisanship and of our desire to do the proper and decent non-partisan thing for the people of this province in terms of their Legislature, which belongs to them and not to us.

The amendment I propose is that this Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills should be representative of the two elements in the Legislature, namely the government side and the opposition side, on an equal basis, and that when the Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills gets to the point of being constituted, and hopefully having that subject on the order paper referred to it, it will then take the position — and that's something for the committee to do — of

[ Page 3672 ]

electing co-chairpersons from that committee, again to exhibit that by being equally represented on the committee — an equal number from government and opposition — and by electing co-chairpersons, there might be an opportunity in an alternating way of chairing those particular committee meetings to arrive at a structure of the rules and procedures of this Legislature — which is not ours, but the people's — that will truly represent a non-partisan approach to those rules. This is a prelude and a preliminary to that particular case.

I would like to move, therefore, in the hopes that we can accommodate the people of British Columbia in establishing their Legislature truly in their minds as being their possession, the following motion, seconded by my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), namely, that the motion be amended by deleting the word "adopted" and substituting therefore the following: "recommitted to the said special committee with instructions that the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee be restructured so as to have an equal number of members thereon from the government side and from the opposition side of the House."

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a brand-new concept. It's a brand-new concept to me.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, because at times I have been just as partisan as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: Excuse me, I have tried to be, and so it is a new venture for me. But I am saying that unless this Legislature is prepared to embark upon new ventures and imaginative ideas to serve the people of this province, then we are not serving the people of this province. I very much regret listening to the catcalls from government members — I don't mean back-benchers, but members of the cabinet — sort of expressing a disagreement with this without ever having looked at it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. HOWARD: There's the Provincial Secretary — I hope that's in Hansard — saying the answer is no. How is it possible to serve the people of this province with dignity if we have such negative...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...thinking as that of the Provincial Secretary?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Negative, negative, negative. The only thing you can think of is being opposed to something. You haven't had a single imaginative idea in your head for the last 35 years. One comes along, and he says no.

Mr. Speaker, in order that we may have the opportunity to consider this over the evening and look at it tomorrow with a freshened and hopefully unanimous view, could I move to...? It is now 6 o'clock, and I call Your Honour's attention to the chair. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: My attention having been drawn to the chair, I recognize the House Leader.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to adjourn debate on this motion until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 3673 ]

Appendix

Pursuant to Order, Mr. Ree presented the following report:

REPORT
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ROOM,
March 6, 1984

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Special Committee appointed on February 13, 1984, to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House for the present Session begs to report that the following are the lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees for the present Session.

STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS—Messrs. Pelton (Convener), Strachan, Veitch, the Hon. G. B. Gardom, the Hon. J. A. Nielsen, the Hon. H. W. Schroeder, Messrs. Howard, Nicolson and Rose.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS—Messrs. Blencoe (Convener), Campbell, Reid, Reynolds, the Hon. J. R. Chabot, the Hon. A. V. Fraser, the Hon. J. J. Hewitt, the Hon. P. L. McGeer, the Hon. W. S. Ritchie, Messrs. Cocke, Hanson and Nicolson.

AGRICULTURE—Messrs. Campbell (Convener), Michael, Reynolds, Segarty, the Hon. J. R. Chabot, the Hon. H. W. Schroeder, Ms. Sanford, Mr. Stupich and Mrs. Wallace.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING—Mr. R. G. Fraser (Convener), Mrs. Johnston, Messrs. Mowat, Parks, Pelton,  the Hon. W. S. Ritchie, Messrs. Blencoe, Rose and Mrs. Dailly.

LABOUR AND JUSTICE—Messrs. Michael (Convener), R. G. Fraser, Parks, Reid, the Hon. R. H. McClelland, the Hon. B. R. D. Smith, Mrs. Brown, Messrs. Gabelmann and Lauk.

HEALTH, EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES—Messrs. Mowat (Convener), Reynolds, Segarty, the Hon. J. H. Heinrich, the Hon. G. M. McCarthy, the Hon. J. A. Nielsen, Mr. Barnes, Mrs. Dailly and Mr. Rose.

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS—Mrs. Johnston (Convener), the Hon. J. Davis, Messrs. R. G. Fraser, Ree, Reid, the Hon. A. V. Fraser, Messrs. Lockstead, Mitchell and Passarell.

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES—Mr. Segarty (Convener), the Hon. J. Davis, Mr. R. G. Fraser, the Hon. A. J. Brummet, the Hon. C. S. Rogers, the Hon. T. M. Waterland, Messrs. Lea, Skelly and Mrs. Wallace.

CROWN CORPORATIONS—Messrs. Ree (Convener), Campbell, Michael, Reynolds, Strachan, Veitch, Howard, Lockstead and Nicolson.

Respectfully submitted.

ANGUS REE, Chairman