[ Page 3711 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Marriages of convenience. Ms. Brown –– 3711

Sale of B.C. Systems Corporation. Mr. Nicolson –– 3711

B.C. Systems Corporation data. Mr. Hanson –– 3712

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hanson

Ambulance dispatch centres. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 3713

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

On vote 39: minister's office –– 3713

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

ML Mitchell

Mr. Barnes

On the amendment to vote 39 –– 3721

Division

On vote 39 –– 3721

Mr. Howard

On vote 76: transit services –– 3722

MR. PASSARELL

Mr. Rose

Mr. Skelly

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lank

British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 10). Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3731

Mr. Passarell –– 3731

Mr. Lauk –– 3732

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3732

Motion

Mr. Cocke –– 3732

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 20: minister's office –– 3733

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Kempf

Appendix –– 3735

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have on the floor of the House today Mr. Rick Folk, Minister of Culture and Recreation for the province of Saskatchewan. I think it's a very appropriate time for Mr. Folk to be in Victoria, when the Brier is on, because he was the winner of the Canadian Brier in 1980 at Calgary and went on the same year to win the world championship in Moncton, New Brunswick. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Folk. I'd also like to welcome his executive assistant Mr. Rick Parken, who is in the members' gallery.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome to the floor of the House today someone who is very well-known not only in British Columbia but right across Canada. He is a Member of Parliament and leader of the NDP in Ottawa. He's also a very brave person, because he spent lunch with the four women members of the NDP to help us....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: He came through it.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: No, we paid the bill.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss International Women's Day. Mr. Broadbent was here to help us celebrate it, and to discuss the NDP's policy regarding economic equality for women. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me these few moments to introduce to the House Mr. Ed Broadbent.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the rules of the House do not permit the member to make a speech. However, on behalf of the government I would like to join in welcoming our distinguished visitor to the House today, for whatever reasons may have motivated Mr. Broadbent to visit Victoria on a beautiful, sunny spring day — whether it's the minus 20 degrees in Ottawa or whether it's to discuss in advance those who will not be the provincial leader after the May selection as possible candidates for another selection which will be before us in our country in the next period of time. I think perhaps, though, that the member for Burnaby North has offered the best possible explanation: Mr. Broadbent journeyed west for the sole purpose of dining with the women members of the NDP caucus in Victoria on International Women's Day. I'm pleased that because of our strong stand for equality the ladies paid for lunch today. On behalf of the government, I extend a very sincere welcome to Victoria and to British Columbia, Mr. Broadbent; we hope that all goes well for you and that you take our best wishes back to the nation's capital.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two very distinguished psychiatrists from Japan. They have come to Canada to visit our mental health facilities, and I thought it only appropriate that they spend some time in the British Columbia Legislature. They are Dr. Akira Kashiba, who is here from Hirakata City in Osaka, and Dr. Hiro Kimura, a former colleague of mine, who is a professor of psychiatry at Shiga Medical School. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a man who probably thinks his brother is crazy, because he is a politician. But if he is anything like his brother we'd like to have him here. His name is Archie Campbell, who is here with his wife Eileen. Please welcome them.

Oral Questions

MARRIAGES OF CONVENIENCE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), but in his absence I will address it not to the acting Attorney-General, because he is also absent, but the acting acting Attorney-General, the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, it concerns an advertisement which appeared in the March 3 edition of the Peace Arch News published in White Rock. The ad went as follows: "If you are looking for a loving, faithful Asian wife, we have a thousand beautiful, honest girls 16 to 65 years." The ad refers to a post office box in Victoria and suggests that you send $5 for a catalogue. Does the acting acting Attorney-General approve of this kind of advertising in the British Columbia public media?

AN HON. MEMBER: Remove the age requirement. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, there seem to be oodles of answers emanating from this side of the House, but I think, in view of the seriousness in which the question was advanced by the member, that it would probably be best that I take it as notice.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, a second question on the same topic. I am pleased that the minister recognizes its seriousness, because it is a degrading ad. Would he find out from the Attorney-General what he intends to do about it if he does not approve of this form of advertising?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice as well.

SALE OF B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. NICOLSON: The closing date for proposals from private interests wishing to acquire B.C. Systems Corporation was July 31, 1983. Will the Minister of Finance now advise whether he has received a report from the sales advisory committee regarding these proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer is yes.

MR. NICOLSON: Has the minister or any government official taken steps to solicit proposals for B.C. Systems Corporation involving offshore investment?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, certainly I have done nothing to solicit proposals with respect to the disposition of part or all of B.C. Systems Corporation...

MR. NICOLSON: Or any member or officials?

[ Page 3712 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I haven't finished, Mr. Member.

...other than that which was made clear earlier on. It may assist the House to know that the sales advisory committee, which I appointed to receive proposals, met with me for the first time, following their review of proposals, one week ago Friday. I therefore have their report and the associated material. That material is under review at this point in time by my office only and has not yet been taken to the executive council.

MR. NICOLSON: Has the minister set a date for liquidating B.C. Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answering the question the word "liquidate" may or may not be appropriate. The announced decision of the government was to dispose of B.C. Systems Corporation and to invite proposals.

I'm pleased that the member has asked the question, because there are a number of rumours circulating at this time with respect to the status of the proposals within government. I repeat, sir: I have that material. I have not yet had an opportunity to fully digest it, let alone take it to my cabinet colleagues. That will occur in the course of the coming weeks.

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION DATA

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the same minister with respect to the security of data at B.C. Systems Corporation. There's considerable concern surrounding the sale of B.C. Systems, because the vital statistics, motor vehicle records, medical records, etc. — the nervous system of government — is contained within the data bank of BCSC. I wish to bring that to the minister's attention and ask how a computerized label within the data bank of BCSC fell into the hands of the Social Credit Party. A coded label identical to one on a Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development mailing list was present on a fund-raising letter sent by the Social Credit Party and signed by Mr. Bernie Smith. I would like to ask the minister how such a breach of security from a data bank in B.C. could cause that to fall into the hands of the Social Credit Party.

[2:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to receive the material to which the member has referred in his question and would certainly take that part of the question as notice and report back to the House. The member has described it as a breach of security. I think my investigation would indicate whether that is or is not correct.

I want to also point out that in the course of the debate on my estimates concluding earlier this week there was not one question in committee with respect to the B.C. Systems Corporation and its disposition, or future plans for that corporation. I was expecting that some questions would be posed. They were not.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What does that mean?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It means that a couple of days ago it was not considered an important matter for debate in this House or in the committee.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They don't like to be reminded of their inadequacies, Mr. Speaker.

Also, it's a matter of record that at the time the Systems Corporation was first proposed for formation, the same concerns about security of information "being vested in one agency within government" were spoken of often in this chamber. Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, security of information which is stored in the Systems Corporation must be paramount in any decision the government reaches with respect to the disposition of some or all of that corporation.

MR. HANSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister what steps the minister had taken to ensure that no breach of security would occur if the award were made to a private company to be the custodian of such privileged information, This particular individual is extremely concerned that his label, with an incorrect address and a computerized label from a government codified bank, has turned up in the hands of a political party. You have not satisfied this House, Mr. Minister, with respect to the breach of security around this matter.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the apparent or alleged breach of security, I invite the member to table or provide to me — whichever he wishes — the material which has formed the basis of his questions. What steps have I taken? I thought I dealt with that in answering the question; perhaps I didn't. The security of the information which is stored in the British Columbia Systems Corporation and, indeed, information which rests within ministries — because it isn't all in the Systems Corporation, as members will know.... As one example, there is information within the Ministry of Health which is transmitted to the British Columbia Systems Corporation. The question of that security is extremely important. It is not so much a question of what steps I have taken but what steps would the government take to ensure that security.

I also inform the House that from time to time we have had a breach of security in the Systems Corporation. One in particular, which was very thoroughly investigated, involved an extremely bright and competent student in a secondary school in the Greater Victoria area who accessed some information. Steps were taken following that to ensure that that sort of thing was held to a minimum.

It is quite clear that when data is stored, whether in the hands of the private sector or in government, security has to be of primary concern. It has been, it is now, and it will remain so.

MR. HANSON: I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of any practice in the B.C. Systems Corporation or any ministry of government of selling computer tapes or labels to highest bidders, whether political party or private enterprise?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not, with the exception of an instance where, with the full knowledge and concurrence of government, certain material regarding assessments has been made available to the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board or the British Columbia Real Estate Association, not individual, personal or private information. In responding to the member, I cannot issue a flat denial that certain data has been made available, but it has been made available in a proper and correct form. I again invite the

[ Page 3713 ]

member to provide me with the material which has caused him concern today.

AMBULANCE DISPATCH CENTRES

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, to prevent further agitation on the part of the member for Mackenzie, I would like to respond to a question he has brought forward on two occasions. The member asked questions relative to the emergency health service in Powell River on February 17 and again on March 6 — about the closure of the emergency health dispatch unit at Powell River and transfer of those duties to Nanaimo. The member for Mackenzie made a series of allegations, which were dealt with in part previously, and I wish to respond to some of the other comments now.

I informed the member that I would inquire into the circumstances surrounding the changeover of ambulance dispatch services from the community of Powell River to Nanaimo, and people within the ministry have now advised me of the facts concerning the transfer. I am advised by the Emergency Health Services Commission that Nanaimo is now one of six regional dispatch centres which dispatch our ambulances on behalf of 68 areas within the province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Everybody knows that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Except the member for Mackenzie.

The system has been in place since 1977, when the system began upgrading dispatch services by creating a regional dispatch network staffed with highly qualified professional ambulance dispatchers trained to exacting standards. The system ensures the uniformity of the quality of service throughout the province, and reassures our citizens that, regardless of the size of the community in which they live, they can rely on the quality of the dispatch system. I would also mention that the RCMP uses a very similar regional dispatching system.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And it works just as badly with them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Mackenzie may be interested to know that Powell River is one of three recent dispatch upgradings to take place. It means that calls for ambulances are routed from the local community to the Nanaimo dispatch office. When the call reaches the Nanaimo dispatch office, a professional dispatcher, who knows immediately the whereabouts of every ambulance in his region and the nearest ambulance to the area, dispatches an appropriate vehicle and crew. As trained ambulance professionals, the regional dispatchers are able to provide critical assistance on the phone to callers.

Powell River is the latest upgrading, following Port Alberni in February, Comox Valley dispatch service in January. In neither of those cases was there any difficulty in the technically challenging job of transferring the dispatch service from local units to the regional unit at Nanaimo. During the installation of the changeover from Powell River to Nanaimo, B.C. Telephones has advised our officials that there were problems with faulty equipment at the Nanaimo exchange. The equipment was traced and subsequently replaced. The member has tabled memoranda from the fire chief at Powell River outlining several incidents which occurred during the changeover, due to the faulty equipment, a problem beyond the control of the emergency health service, and one which could not have been foreseen in its plans to bring improved service to Powell River.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no reported incidents since that time. No individual has been reported to have suffered as a result of these delays, and no complaints have been filed with the commission. In fact, we have only the comments of the fire chief thus far in trying to determine all the facts surrounding the initial difficulties with the phone service. The Emergency Health Services Commission advises me that the shift pattern for staffing the Powell River ambulance unit has also been improved, ensuring that we have two full-time staff members to be on the ambulance seven days per week, as opposed to five days per week under the old system.

To summarize, Mr. Speaker, improvements have been made and will continue to be made to the dispatch system for ambulances in B.C. As we continue to improve and upgrade our systems, we'll continue also to meet with and listen to and cooperate with local officials as we have done with the fire department in Powell River, to ensure all British Columbians have the same first-class professional service. In the case of Powell River, the service has been enhanced, as it was in other centres in the province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, with a view to keeping the members informed, I would like to file answers to questions on the order paper.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity to get up and correct some of the statements just made by the Minister of Health. There were a number of inaccuracies in that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, you will have an opportunity to make any corrections deemed necessary at the appropriate time, which is not now.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table the material I referred to in my question.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have just one short question about the ministry. It has specifically to do with the case of Mrs. Christine Shaw. I wonder whether the minister would be willing to give me an update as to the status of that particular case. Apparently Mrs. Shaw has written to the minister. This has to do with the assault which her child suffered during the time she was in foster care. Can the minister tell me what the status of Mrs. Shaw's case is at this time?

[ Page 3714 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think I can. I am aware of the subject of the query, but I'm not up to date right now, from memory. Let me get that information within the hour.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a couple of points I'd like to raise with the minister. One relates to an instance which points out the difficulties that occur with the GAIN regulations relative to earned and unearned income. The minister is aware, I think, of both these issues, but she keeps....

Well, the one is obviously not being considered, and the other she says she has no thoughts of changing at this time. The one I want to raise with the minister today relates to.... I think an example is probably the best way to point it out. The husband in this instance is in receipt of a veteran's allowance. The wife is in receipt of GAIN. There is a child who was receiving family allowance. Family allowance is considered as earned income, and GAIN is not cut back in the amount of family allowance received when calculating the total income for the family unit. The child reached the age of 18, was dropped from family allowance, and the veteran's pension was increased by a like amount because the child is still in school — that is a policy for the federal veteran's pension. That is considered unearned income, and as a result of that the wife's GAIN income has been reduced by the amount of that family allowance. I'm sure the minister will realize the difficulty in which this places the family, which has a young growing child in school — to have their income curtailed by that amount.

I'm sure the minister will agree with me. She has been telling us in this House that because of the difficult times the province is facing she's not able to grant the increases that she feels would really be justified, that she just doesn't have the money. In this case, it is a reduction to a family in that amount because of the different source of income. I just feel that I have to point it out again. She has indicated to me that she has no intention of changing her policy at this time. I'm asking her once again whether or not she would consider reviewing that policy relative to earned and unearned income, because it seems to me that in the case of a family, if we're going to maintain that kind of approach — that the family has to come first and we're going to look at cutting back single people and young people; not that I agree with that, but that's the policy the minister has enunciated.... This falls into the category of groups of people she's trying to support. I really am concerned about that.

[2:30]

The other item I'll just raise briefly while I'm on my feet is really a federal item. It has to do with day-care centres. I did talk to the minister at one time about the difference in rates allowed for the different types of day care. Family day care gets a lower allowance than another type of day-care centre, but family day care has suddenly been hit with a change in the federal income tax policy, so that they have to come up to a whole different standard of provisions relative to federal income tax policy. They have to set aside a special section of their house; none of the rooms that are used for day care can be for family use. They have to declare themselves as a business and be taxed as a business under the new federal guidelines, and this creates a terrific problem for day-care centres. In view of that, is the minister at least prepared to reconsider her assessment or her allowance for private family day-care centres.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would have to look into that. I'm not aware of the change; it's a change in federal policy which impacts on the revenue to a day-care centre. I can't give you the answer; I don't know. I'll be glad to find out.

On the other one, we do make an exception. As you know, when someone is on income assistance, the family allowance is not included, so that above and beyond for each child the family tax credit or the family allowance is not counted. In the veterans' allowance it would be the same. Let me just say that if we made the change in this instance and if you carried that to all areas of policy, you would find that people — seniors, for instance — who have different incomes would also demand the same thing.

I'll take another look at it; I'll be very pleased to do that. What I mentioned to you when we last debated this I think prevails, but I'll be very pleased to look into it and get an answer back to you.

MRS. WALLACE: I would point out that this is not universal. It wouldn't have to relate to seniors, because this actually relates to funds provided for a child in school. It replaces the family allowance in that instance, so it does seem to me to be somewhat different.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to participate in this debate, not so much for what the minister has said but what she has failed to say in her address to the House. I have to give the minister a lot of credit for dealing with all the detailed operations of the particular budget, the particular problems within the ministry. We have had nearly two days of technical information. Again in support of the minister, in my own riding, whenever I have wanted assistance from her particular department I have had excellent cooperation.

But what really has bothered me is any philosophical discussion of where we in British Columbia are going to go; what effect unemployment and the welfare curbs are having on families, on police budgets, on the people living on the streets, on the people who are losing thousands and thousands of dollars from pilfering because of unemployment and people stealing to survive. I find that nowhere in her talk, or her discussion, has she faced this particular issue, or brought to the House or the public of British Columbia the same hope that she brought in March 1983 when she sent out to all of us — to the media, everyone and sundry in British Columbia — the proposals of her ministry, what her government was doing to instil a kind of hope of an opportunity to work. When I go through this particular job-creation program — she entitled it "Success or Failure" — section by section, she indicates to the people of British Columbia, and to the youth especially, that there are job opportunities on the horizon. As we all know, this was sent out prior to the election, but it was sent out with the knowledge of the economic situation in British Columbia. I know that if I said that sending it out was deceitful you would say that was unparliamentary.

What I would like to say to the minister is that the question of jobs, the problem of cutting off hope to a lot of young people and families, has to be faced by the government; it has to be faced by each and every one of us who is elected. We can't continue to cloud the issue with the technical problems. I know they exist and each one of those is very important, but I think.... I know that the minister has a lot of clout in her own cabinet, but she must be prepared to give some leadership and some potential hope that the

[ Page 3715 ]

programs that she announced were going to carry on, such as the EBAP program.... This was given out in March, a few months before the election, and right after the election they were cut off. A question I brought to the Minister of Finance was: when is the government going to sign a contract through the Ministry of Forests with the federal government to get back into the silviculture program that is providing jobs which are going to relieve some of our welfare and social problems? Mr. Chairman, I think that we have to have some answers. We can't continue to cut people back and not expect an explosion out on the street. It's the little person who is going to suffer. It's the little people who are going to lose their goods and chattels from their cars, which are being continually rifled. It is going to be the little person who in frustration will be spending time in jail. It will be the little people — policemen — who have to continue to take pressure from family problems.

Let me read some of the letters she sent out to all MLAs prior to the election, asking for suggestions for job opportunities. We must look at that from a philosophical position. We must look at it from the need of facing the position that British Columbia is in. We can't continue to allow it to go down without realizing there is a problem that is going to explode. I remember when the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) said that there was going to be violence on the streets a number of years ago. That violence is there. It's a very latent violence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where?

MR. MITCHELL: It is there, and it is being shown in the street prostitution in Vancouver and Victoria, because people are going to survive. People are going to have to exist. When we don't give people the opportunity to look forward to having a job and some hope, we are going to have that problem come back to us in many, many ways. I don't think we can afford to have it continue. I ask the minister to do some of her philosophical discussions of where the people of British Columbia are going to go. I don't want to hear clichés that somewhere down the line private industry is going to lead us into the good way of life. The only way we're going to get into the good way of life is if we in society, in this House and in this government take a positive stand and give some of that initiative and leadership. It's easy for all these people, who are sitting there with their $50,000 and $100,000 incomes, to sit and laugh, but for a lot of people who had $50 cut off their wages....

MR. MOWAT: How much income?

MR. MITCHELL: Anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 sitting in that little group over there. That is a fact of life, and you know it. You can sit, laugh and make all kinds of fun, but out in the street there are people who are suffering. There are people in each one of our communities who are suffering.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, if you will bring some order back to that rowdy group of super-millionaires, then they would bring down to the facts of somewhere down the line.... I withdraw that. That is a very unparliamentary remark, even to the rich group over there which is headed by engineers and ministers of the Crown. Some of them have lots of investments. There are a lot of people who are looking for some help, and I sincerely say....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: I can always tell when I'm getting to their consciences, because it really bothers them. I know they have a conscience. I know they care, but they have to show that disregard to humanity in support of the government's hold-tight program. I say there is a need for a certain amount of restraint in waste. I've said this time after time. But there's also a need right now that the minister review some of the promises that she made in her three- four- or five-page press release with a lot of positive answers, a lot of positive suggestions and a lot of hope. I ask the minister: would she review it? What has she to recommend to this House or to her cabinet for an answer to the problems?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'll be so pleased when the other Vancouver Centre member arrives, because what we are being asked again today is what has been asked for two days and what I've answered for two days. I think I would just refer the member to the response that I have made in the past two days to the like question from his colleague from Vancouver Centre: we are protecting those in most need in this province.

You've made reference to employment. This is not the ministry of employment. It is the ministry that gives people temporary help in time of need. Any references that I made in responses and in requesting our fellow MLAs in this House to assist was in reference to an employment development program which I was pleased to be associated with last year. It was a joint program with the federal government. We used funding and we placed many, many people in many, many jobs and it was a very successful program. In fact, British Columbia placed more in that program, throughout the province, than did all the rest of the provinces in Canada put together.

I have to say again that questions of why there is a worldwide recession and how to meet the worldwide recession are really not appropriate to this ministry. We are the ones who pick up the pieces in the event of a worldwide recession, and this ministry has done so in a very capable way. I'm pleased and proud that my staff have been able to do so.

[2:45]

Prior to lunch I was asked a question by the member for Vancouver Centre, and I did want to get into some of the detail of the income assistance to families. I think the basis of the question sprang from the fact that very many food banks have sprung up during the time of this recession, and was it not a signal that perhaps there was not sufficient money going into income assistance. Once again I say that three-quarters of a billion dollars is going into helping those people, of whom 76 percent are on for eight months or less. The turnover is very quick. Eight months on social assistance is not something that people would want to look forward to, so I'm not suggesting that that's a short time. I just say it's shorter than most people think it is. They think of people coming and staying on for years and years. It's an ever-changing population in the income assistance group.

The member said that with escalating rents, etc., there would be pressure on those people to provide for their families and that is why food banks are so popular. It may well be

[ Page 3716 ]

that food banks are popular because there are some people who do not go on income assistance. It isn't always income assistance people who are using food banks. It's people who either will not, or have assets for some reason and do not, take income assistance. You have to consider that.

I want to give you some statistics in terms of numbers and dollars, etc. There is a fair amount of extras that go with families that is never counted in. We talked about the family of four yesterday — a single parent with three children. One of the children was in day care and two were at school. When you add up all of the extras and all of the things that she gets, the gross potential disposable income for that mother with three children is $15,880 a year; whereas the disposable income of a financial assistance worker in our ministry who is also a single parent and also has three children, one in day care and two in school, amounts to $18,400. So when you make the case for increases, you can readily see that there is a very fine line to be drawn here. There are some people who are working every day who think that the extra they have to put out in order to work is a considerable sacrifice on their part.

I am looking forward to the questions from both members for Vancouver Centre, and I thank you for giving me this opportunity to answer.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, it has actually been a long two or three days, and I will continue at the same pace I was this morning. Hopefully we can complete my questioning of the minister.

She just commented on the question I raised this morning about the numbers of people on social assistance who are also having to supplement their social assistance incomes by standing in long lines at food banks. I want to remind the minister that although they're not all social assistance recipients, approximately 85 percent are, and that is quite a large number. She was saying that some are not, and that's quite true. Probably about 15 percent are not, from the statistics that I'm getting on my visits to the foods banks in the Vancouver area, and I've visited two or three of them.

The other examples the minister gave were with respect to the social assistance financial aid worker. She compared the mother with the two children, whose social assistance was in the area of $15,000 per year, to $18,000 for the financial aid worker. The needs cannot be based on the availability of jobs. We are talking about what is necessary to subsist on. Obviously the person who is able to be constructively engaged in employment has that advantage, and that is a very real advantage for people compared to those who do not have an opportunity for constructive use of their time and have to find other ways to engage themselves. I think a person who has a job, even if it's only $3,000 more than a person on social assistance, has many advantages due to the fact that they do have employment.

There is another point that I wanted to provide information on. I checked on the subject we raised this morning to do with the sex therapist counsellor, whom we commented on from the Province newspaper. I have reviewed with researchers to determine what the regulations are respecting a person who wishes to set themselves up as a counsellor. I believe the minister made the remark this morning that as far as she knew one could not call themselves a counsellor without being a counsellor. I'm not sure if by that she meant they would have to be in some way certified. She is correct if she means that if they call themselves a counsellor, they are a counsellor. That's quite correct. But therein lies the concern of the opposition.

In this province, as I understand and am told, one may call oneself a sex therapist, a counsellor, a marriage counsellor or a social worker without having to meet any kind of standard or regulation. But one cannot call oneself a registered social worker, Mr. Chairman, without being registered by the society. Apparently that is a voluntary procedure and not required, but it would be an advantage if they wanted to distinguish themselves from anyone who just wished to call themselves a social worker or a counsellor, or any of these other categories.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment on what steps the superintendent of family and child services would take to ensure that the initiatives to privatize some of the agencies that are providing services to families and children are not subjected to people who may not be able to be held responsible for the ministry's obligations. There is obviously an appalling lack of regulations in this field, and this is one of the concerns that we in the opposition have had respecting the whole concept of privatization. I make that point as a warning and as a concern.

Another area of concern has to do with the seniors' supplement. In this fiscal year's estimates, apparently the $18 million that was previously in place remains. Will the federal government's guaranteed income supplement of $25, due to come on stream July 1, be passed on? In other words, will senior citizens, or persons receiving the provincial supplement, also receive the $25, which would be in addition to the $38.88 currently received, or will it mean that it will not be passed on and will somehow find itself in consolidated revenue and that they will receive $13.88? I'm not sure. I'd just like to know what will happen. Also, there is a second phase to the $25 — another $25 in January 1985. Will the government be passing this on to the seniors?

Another question has to do with the SAFER services to seniors. The estimates previously indicated $7.5 million as a total grant for SAFER. The 1984-85 estimates show an increase of some $2 million to $9.5 million. Would this indicate that an increase in SAFER benefits is the objective? Would the minister advise us in this regard?

Another question has to do with seniors' day centres. Would the minister tell the House the reasons for withdrawing the $16,000 that was being provided for the Eastside Seniors' Activity Centre in the downtown Vancouver area? The moneys that were being provided had paid for the salary for the coordinator, who offered English lessons for the Cantonese community, as well as craft classes, bus tours, assistance with medical, tax and immigration forms, translation services and personal counselling.

MR. MOWAT: Are you talking about 411?

MR. BARNES: No, that's on Dunsmuir. This is in Chinatown. It was in the newspapers. It's one of the major ones.

I have one other question as well, Mr. Chairman, respecting refugees. They are usually people who are inland, but they have come to this country and are awaiting approval by the federal manpower and immigration department. These people sometimes can wait for as long as 18 months in order to have their status verified — whether they will or will not be accepted as citizens. However, in the interim such refugees in the province of British Columbia have been, as I understand

[ Page 3717 ]

it, considered ineligible for assistance from the Ministry of Human Resources. I would appreciate it if the minister would clarify the position with respect to this and the Canada Assistance Plan, which states that no such distinction with respect to any resident in the province...that they should be eligible regardless of their status while they are awaiting a designation from Employment and Immigration. I will leave those with you and we'll go on.

[3:00]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the status of a potential immigrant has to be determined by the federal administration. We don't have any, if you like, communication or business.... We may have communication, but we certainly don't have any business with that person who is applying for entry into Canada for the first year, within the year.

MR. BARNES: Would they get assistance?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, they don't get assistance from us. The federal administration has what they call a settlement assistance. Everything is done through the federal government. We don't touch that at all. We have no reference to it at all. By the time the year is up, they are settled as citizens or as landed immigrants. We may enter the picture at that time, and then we will decide on their eligibility for us based on their capability to stand on their own feet. So really that isn't a problem. It's a federal government problem and the federal government provides the settlement assistance.

On the SAFER question, the answer to that is no, there is no increase in benefits. The money that is provided within the budget maintains the program as it has done in past years. In response to whether or not we will have close jurisdiction and close watch over the people who will take the 22 new agreements on, we have the experience and the satisfaction of knowing that ten years' experience in this field, with 600 like organizations and services, has been exceptional in this province. The agreement is done at the local level where people know each other in the community. We know the staff that will be involved. There is a monitoring system with visits paid by our staff in the ministry office to these organizations.

There is a liaison almost on a daily basis. When a project like that starts, whether it is funded by government or through government to society, there is always a liaison with the local office because we are dealing with a child or a battered wife who is in need. There are always phone calls back and forth in liaison. Our local office is very much in touch on a daily basis, not just a once-in-a-while visit. During the time that we have the agreement there is a very good opportunity for a concern to be expressed, either by another staff member or by members of the public, and if that concern is expressed then certainly we can deal with it. We can deal with it immediately, because we really hold that agreement in our hands. There is no year of negotiations as to whether or not someone should be laid off, which certainly happens in government circles and in many private firms as well. That is a possibility. If there is something wrong...and there could be, as we are dealing with hundreds and hundreds of people. You appreciate that can happen in government service; that can happen in the private sector; that can happen in community services.

On the other question that you asked regarding the seniors' supplementary or the seniors' incremental increases, there was only one time when that wasn't passed on to the seniors in this province, and the Social Credit government wasn't here. The New Democratic Party was in charge. That was the only time in history that it wasn't passed on. It was either 1973 or 1974 — I can look it up. I know that you'd be pleased to know that this government always has and always will pass on those increases to the seniors. Whatever the federal government wishes to give, we are passing it on.

MR. BARNES: Will there be a reduction in what they are getting?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, we have always passed it on. There has never been a reduction. It becomes an increase for the senior citizen.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: What are you getting twitchy about? I thought we were making real progress. We are getting ready for a big vote. We are never going to be finished if people's business is an ongoing process, Mr. Minister of Health.

This question has to do with the mentally retarded. The estimates for this year indicate that expenditures will be $7 million over the previous year. Does the minister intend to reinstate the PIRT team to assist in the process of decentralization of those mental retardation institutions? Will any of the money be sent to the British Columbians for the mentally handicapped society to reinstate the training program grant of $60,000 which was withdrawn last year? Has the minister any plans to use these additional funds to reinstate the mentally retarded coordinators at district levels? And could the minister advise the house what progress is being made with respect to the decentralization program? I would appreciate if she would comment on the facilities in the communities where these individuals are to be relocated in their communities.

While she is doing that, I would just briefly, for the record, express the sentiments of the president of the British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People. I said "mentally retarded"; they are handicapped people. That's the correct designation. This is an article from earlier in the year, January 16, entitled "In-Service Team Axing Was An Inhumane Move." The text is as follows:

"The provincial in-service resources team eliminated by the provincial government on July 7 was by all accounts the best such group on the continent. That small team of six people provided cost-effective training, support and resource expertise to parents of mentally handicapped children with severe behaviour and communication difficulties. Without PIRT" — that's the provincial in-service resources team that was providing the service for these families — "the children were in danger of being placed in institutions at a staggering cost to taxpayers of $130 to $200 per day. The human cost was equally intolerable: children removed from their own homes to spend their lives in inhospitable, impersonal institutions.

"The PIRT team sifted through the best of research and theory, translating it into down-to-earth, practical suggestions for parents, special teachers and other providers of service. They were the professionals whom professionals went to. Once PIRT accepted a case, parents and professionals involved with the

[ Page 3718 ]

handicapped person became involved in a contract to ensure that training was carried out. Now they are gone, and the circle of despair and frustration for parents begins again.

"Withdrawal of support from such parents leads to family stress that occasionally leads to family breakdown. Too often the direct result is institutionalization of handicapped children. Few parents want to give up their handicapped children to the care of others. Ironically, while our government professes its allegiance to the family and to normal community living for mentally handicapped children, its decision to eliminate PIRT has the opposite result. Further, the provincial government now knows there is no community agency capable of providing the highly specialized services that PIRT provided.

"British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People are joining with parents and other community groups to press for restoration of PIRT. We invite your readers to support us by expressing their concern to the Minister of Human Resources....."

They go on to appeal to the minister. I would like to ask the minister if she has received those appeals, and what is her response with respect to that and the questions I raised earlier?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member raises the question of the provincial in-service resources team. First of all, I think it's very important for the member to understand that the government has committed itself to the development of community-based services for handicapped children. A great deal is happening in this regard, and has been for a very long time. This has been a government policy. The PIRT team was only a relatively small support service to that whole idea and organization, that whole commitment. The elimination of it will not lead to children being placed in institutions. We have, I suggest, the most aggressive program in North America for deinstitutionalization. There isn't anything like it anywhere else in Canada; I don't know about the rest of the North American continent. Nobody's doing anything like we are doing in deinstitutionalization. Only the most severely handicapped are even admitted to an institution today, and that's been going on not just this year or last year but for four or five years now. We don't even admit at the first instance. It used to be that if a child was born mentally handicapped, the first thing was to just put them in an institution. That doesn't happen any more. Only where there are very profound problems are they even entered. The ones who have been in there....

When we finish the deinstitutionalization process in Tranquille, about 4 percent or less of the mentally handicapped in the province will be in an institution. Right now about 5 percent of the mentally handicapped are in institutions. We will reduce that number by a full 1 percent or more by the end of this year. You referred to PIRT, and I say again that the provincial in-service resources team was first introduced with the intent to assist in training and developing services for autistic children. Those were developed and are in place today. I can tell you a little bit about that program, but you didn't ask the question, so let me go on to answer what you did ask.

During that time when PIRT was first established.... Then it went from that goal to others. We've established the infant development program, which has turned out to be of tremendous assistance. This is when we do have a child who is born with some problems and at the moment that they're in the community and not placed in an institution — again I reiterate, we don't do that — then we have an infant development program that has had marvellous successes. It works with the child and the mother from the time that they're home from the hospital or even in the hospital. That's an incredible program. It's throughout the province to provide direct support and services to handicapped children. That's been added since PIRT was established. New programs provide life-skills training for the handicapped, particularly the older young people. I worked with the then Minister of Education to establish the Chance program to make sure that handicapped children in schools could be kept in schools and those who had never seen a schoolroom could be brought into the schoolroom with non-handicapped children and integrated. Children are far more adaptable, and they say they're far more cruel, but they're also far more quick to change and be accepting. I see the day less than a decade away that it will be completely normal to see disabled and able working side by side. It's happening right now in the province of British Columbia. I've heard you say on a couple of occasions in these estimates that we were given great credit for all of these things when they were introduced. Not so, Mr. Chairman. But it goes on with its successes every day, and we don't want credit; we want it to be a success. But we do want it to be recognized that it does lead the nation in that regard. I think we all want that for our handicapped youngsters — to lead the nation in services.

[3:15]

So we made a choice on the PIRT program. It was a choice between reducing staff and expenditures or terminating services on a priority basis. We preferred to have the direct services for those handicapped youngsters and the young people who are mentally disabled. So that little PIRT group has been cancelled. It will not be coming back.

The question about phasing out Tranquille and what we are doing to phase it out: so far it's a very successful operation. We're getting a lot of cooperation. We have cooperation from the organization that is responsible for the mentally disabled. I know that the House Leader for the New Democratic Party is coming in to give the good news that the second member for Vancouver Centre has finally crossed the water and is going to be in the House soon.

But to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), with whom we are debating the Ministry of Human Resources estimates, I want you to know that that has gone on very well in Tranquille so far. There have been the expected concerns over change. I quite appreciate what that would be like, so I've tried very hard to have both staff and the organizations give out the information that leads to a sense of security within all of the parents who have had their children in that institution for a long time. This will return the children to their home communities and in some cases when there is no parent any longer — and that happens a lot in these Tranquille cases where the parents have passed on and there really isn't a family — they will be given a very good setting and a community-based resource and it will be for the better all around, I think, for that young person to live in the community. It's been very successful. I'm pleased with the cooperation.

You're going to hear some criticisms from time to time. There was one in the Kamloops paper, and it was a columnist who was.... I'm not going to read the whole thing or even

[ Page 3719 ]

any of it. There was a very long report — four columns about eight to ten inches long — critical of the haste, etc., of closing Tranquille. The answer from a mother and a president of the Kamloops Society for the Mentally Handicapped.... It was the one that I think I mentioned yesterday to you. I'd like to read this, because it's really expressive of what a parent feels. She says it better than I or you could say it. I'm quoting from her letter of response to the very critical column:

"Who is going to benefit? Definitely the residents. The very fact that they will wake up each morning in their own bedroom in a house occupied by a normal-sized 'family' group rather than in a hospital setting with 330 other people will be an improvement. "I wonder how 'normal' Mr. McRae would be if he lived in a similar setting."

You know, I think that says it all.

We won't apologize for the time-frame. I will tell you why the time-frame: Tranquille needed a lot of financial investment to improve it. Some has already been done, but the physical plant needs millions of dollars invested in it if it's going to be used for this purpose. We had a commitment to everyone that we would deinstitutionalize within the next ten years. We didn't say "in ten years"; we said "within the next ten years."

Considering the lobby that has gone on in this province for a very long time by the association which you mentioned, British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People, it surprises me that we've had any criticism at all from those sources. They were very aggressive in trying to get us to make that policy statement, and we made it. We are committed to deinstitutionalization within ten years. So the closing of Tranquille has not been hasty; we planned to do it. It has been hastened by the deterioration of the physical plant and the need for a massive expenditure of funds.

So I refer back to the question on PIRT and the question on Tranquille and the deinstitutionalization. I tell you that we will look back on this year — a year of restraint — as the most aggressive year of deinstitutionalization that probably this province has ever seen or will see, and we should be proud of the fact that we can do it in this time. It really is not a cost-saving measure, because, as you well know, providing these community-based services is a very costly thing.

I want to refer to the aid to the B.C. association you asked about. Their funding was $60,000. They have always been good at raising their own funds and have a capability of raising their own funds. It was thought that the funds should be used for direct services to the mentally handicapped. This year the direct services, or at least the numbers of dollars in a whole range of things — life skills program achievement centres, Chance, special needs day care, infant development program, residential programs of all kinds and also institutional care — will increase from a $118 million budget to a $128 million budget. Are we putting more money into the services for the mentally handicapped? The answer is yes: $118 million to $128 million in one year.

MR. BARNES: At the risk of filibustering the minister's estimates, I'll try to respond briefly. Actually I just want to get some response for the record. I appreciate the details, however, because this will provide myself and others in the community an opportunity to review the government's thinking, and I'm sure that as the weeks and months go by, we'll be in a position to refer back to them. So I do appreciate the details the minister has given.

She indicated that the federal government's guaranteed income supplement had not normally been passed on except by her government. I'm not certain of how accurate that is, but I can say that the Mincome program was introduced during the New Democratic Party government and changed the whole approach. GAIN, as you know, the present Guaranteed Available Income for Need program, is a result of the Mincome, so if we got into that debate, we'd be here all afternoon.

I would like to ask one final question. I knew I'd get to it eventually. This question has to do with the community involvement program that was available at one time to a large number of people. The minister said when the program was terminated last year that she would be introducing that program, and I'm sure she will want to comment on it now. As I read it, the minister has replaced that program with something drastically different. She can, of course, respond to that. The previous community involvement program that was available paid unemployables on income assistance. It paid physically or mentally disabled. It included single parents with two children under 12 years of age, or one child under 6 months. It included single parents with physically or mentally disabled children. They were allowed to perform about 20 hours of work for a community program. The new program, as I understand it, excludes that group I just read. It includes only a person who is certified under the GAIN act as being physically handicapped. Obviously there are no objections to that program for that category, but the point is: compared to what was there before, there has been a major shift and a change in their.... It is a problem that many people feel should be corrected.

The minister will recall my asking her a question sometime last year with respect to contracted CIP — those persons working in an agency at $50 per month whc, had contracts. Apparently not all CIP were under contract, but there were some. One particular contractee was a worker by the name of Denis Jensen, who was represented by a lawyer in the city of Vancouver following a rejection by the Ministry of Human Resources to appeal the termination of his contract. As a result of a hearing in Supreme Court by Justice Callaghan, the right to appeal was confirmed resulting in Mr. Jensen's successful launching of an application for his appeal. In view of the decision of Judge Callaghan last year, will the minister now make retroactive payments of $50 per month to those former CIP recipients who had filed an appeal with the ministry, and who were under contract? It may be that those who were not under contract have a case as well. I would like the minister to comment on that, because I'm sure that it reflects our concern about the haste with which the government proceeds in its decisions. In this case it was too hasty, because obviously the government suffered some embarrassment. They had violated contractual commitments with these people. Consider that these people were, as I've just explained, obviously in need, receiving $50 per month and working 20 hours for it, and that the $50 is cost-shared by the Canada Assistance Plan; in other words, the government is paying only $25 of the $50. In terms of cost-saving, the government was in fact bypassing an opportunity to have this extra income from the federal government in providing these programs.

I would like to have the minister respond before I make one final representation. If she can do that in a concise way,

[ Page 3720 ]

then I will respond in kind. However, I would appreciate it if she does whatever she feels is appropriate for the occasion.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in the court case that the member brings to the House, the court ruled that the CIP payment was income assistance and that it was appealable to a tribunal. That was the court's decision. I'm not aware that it was ever taken to a tribunal. The question is.... It would have to go to a tribunal from there. The court really didn't rule that it should or shouldn't be paid. They didn't make that decision. They just said it was appealable because of income assistance.

[3:30]

Let's go back to the original intent or the idea of CIP. When I introduced the estimates, I told you that we were reinstating it possibly a little differently. Still, for those we are most concerned about, those who we wish to give some sense of confidence to, with some help to become independent by first working a few hours in an organization which would give them a bit of self-confidence, I mentioned that that program will be reinstated. The notice was given back in July, I think, that all of the agreements that were outstanding to the end of March were to be honoured. You and I debated that. Well, we didn't debate it; we agreed last year that that should be so. The new program will dovetail with the end of those agreements and will be available in the new fiscal year.

I don't know what else I can say except that I am pleased about that. I think it's good that we've been able to reinstate that in a recession year. I was working towards that all last year and I'm pleased to tell you that that is so.

One of the questions I didn't answer was from your last query. You asked if I responded to the letter from the B.C. Association of the Mentally Handicapped. I met with them in my office and we went through every aspect of the letter, and from the good meeting that we had I think they were well satisfied with the deinstitutionalization of Tranquille — the steps we were taking and what we were doing. That wasn't too long ago, maybe within the last month — certainly since that letter was written. I think that covers it, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BARNES: I just want to say that I agree with the minister that British Columbians for Handicapped People of the province of British Columbia.... That's the new name; it's no longer the B.C. Retardation Society, or Mentally Retarded. It's changed its name. In any event, I'm sure they do not want to be misunderstood, because obviously they are in favour of decentralization and have campaigned for it. They are only concerned about the orderly decentralization process, as are most people. I do laud the government for its initiatives in this regard, and I think they should continue. We are just concerned about its being done well. There is no question about the remarks you made; I just want to associate myself with those.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read into the record some facts concerning the cutbacks. It will just take a minute or two. It is with great regret that these events have had to happen, because they have been, as we all know.... Since the last election we have heard many announcements from the government with respect to cutbacks, and you could say that we have been really rocking and reeling in this province as a result of them. The list is long; nonetheless, here it is for the record.

The cutbacks and program changes are as follows:

Community involvement program eliminated August 31, 1983: 2,500 at $50 per month, which was shared, as I said, with the federal government. That is of course being reintroduced now at a much lesser effect. Seniors' day centres, 23, funding terminated March 31, 1984. Renters' tax credit for 1983 tax year, abolished. Personal income tax credit, 1983 tax year, abolished. British Columbia housing rental increase: the amount went from 25 percent of income to 30 percent of income. That's the B.C. Housing Management Commission. Family support workers: 259 positions affecting 226 people, terminated October 31, 1983. Program coordinators terminated October 31, 1983. Income-assistance coordinators, mental retardation coordinators, 14, family and child service coordinators: all terminated. Rates were frozen for GAIN income assistance, GAIN for handicapped, foster care and SAFER in July 1983. Provincial in-service resource team, which we just discussed, eliminated October 31, 1983: five workers. These were for disturbed and disabled children. Post-partum counselling: five positions terminated October 31, 1983. In-home service, which involved 35 positions on the lower mainland responsible for mothers' help and seniors, terminated October 31, 1983. Twenty-four child care resources in Vancouver are to be privatized. As we know, that started in February; as of March 31 those will no longer be under the direct control of the government. Vancouver Transition House is to be privatized at the end of this month. Community projects funding is cut back. Family and child assessment teams — this is specialized child abuse — eliminated October 31, 1983. Nutritionist program, five in the lower mainland eliminated October 31, 1983.

Community projects: B.C. Association of Persons with Handicaps training grant of $50,000 was cancelled last July 9. Fifteen of the child-care counsellors in Vancouver schools are being terminated as of June this year; these will apparently be recontracted out to the school board and others will go to private contractors. The Pharmacare deductible for universal Pharmacare was raised from $125 to $175 in this budget. The GAIN changes, effective as of April 1, reintroduced the age category. Support allowances paid to single persons and couples without children under 25 years of age were reduced. Earnings exemptions will not be applicable until the recipient has been on assistance for eight months. Persons awaiting unemployment insurance will only be eligible for emergency assistance. This is all contrary to the primary purpose of the GAIN act, which is to prevent poverty, neglect and suffering. As a result, I will just recall the remark of the minister some time ago, when she found it necessary to remove the CI program and said: "What's $50 in the long scheme of things."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I did not. That's not true.

MR. BARNES: What did you say?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Sit down and I'll tell you what I said.

MR. BARNES: No, tell me from your seat what you said. The minister says she did not say: "What's $50?" It was in all the papers. I only want to deal with the facts, Mr. Chairman, and if the minister is now saying that she thinks $50 is pretty important, I agree with her. This is why we

[ Page 3721 ]

wanted to have the program in the first place, and keep it intact.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'm just not sure. But you, of course, can set the record straight.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, it was in the paper. Do you deny it?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, I can tell you that you certainly weren't anxious to respond to our request to leave it in place. Whatever the reason was, you removed it — whether it's important or not.

I just want to make one simple motion, Mr. Chairman, and we will let the facts speak for themselves. I move that vote 39 be reduced by the amount of $50. I think that is in keeping with the minister's views on the $50 payment to those CIP people.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr.Chairman, I would suggest that the motion is highly irregular. I know that in these committees we have many times had a reduction in a vote, sometimes to $1 and sometimes by $1, but the motion before us today is highly irregular.

MR. HOWARD: I think if Your Honour were to review the record, you would find that we reduced an item to $5 once — that was the price of a show. On one occasion it was $4.33; $1.49 on another occasion; and other figures. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture was in the chair on many of those occasions as Mr. Speaker when those motions were put to reduce votes by varying amounts. Fifty dollars is just as much in order as $1.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I seldom sat in committee when I was Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the amendment is in order and I will call the question.

[3:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 26

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

On vote 39.

MR. HOWARD: I just have a few things to say on this particular vote. I'd particularly like to extend my own and, on behalf of my colleagues, our most grateful congratulations and appreciation to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) for the excellent job he did in dealing with these estimates.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, in order to let the second member for Vancouver Centre get here, let me just add my congratulations, too, to the other member for Vancouver Centre, who has been a very fair critic, I'd say, in this last estimate.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question, and unfortunately I had to leave the room. The minister sent me a note....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I had to leave the room.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. It happens to everyone.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, although I'm not sure that that defence helped me any.

I just want to ask the minister whether the case is now closed as a result of the fact that that worker is no longer with the ministry. Does that mean that the case is closed, or is some more work still being done on it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, the case is all closed. It has been taken care of. I can give you the further details later.

Vote 39 approved.

[ Page 3722 ]

Vote 40: ministry programs, $1,281,215,544 — approved.

On vote 76: transit services, $75,500,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The chair recognizes the hon. member for Atlin. [Applause.]

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would accept a draft.

MR. REID: Is that a beer?

MR. PASSARELL: A draft beer or a draft bank note. Isn't this nice, to be able to stand up and have this kind of friendly atmosphere here? It's only a shame that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) wasn't here.

On vote 76, the transit services, I have just a couple of short comments before I turn it over to my colleagues. Last year's budget of $86,600,000 is down to $75,500,000, a drop in transit service of approximately $11.1 million or 15 percent. The estimate on the vote itself covers three particular areas. The first one is the custom bus services. This sub-vote covers contributions for the disabled in the urban area. The vote this year is the same as last year, and I appreciate the minister for not cutting back in the custom bus service for disabled people, which is extremely worthwhile and a necessary and essential service for the disabled people in the lower mainland who have to depend on the custom bus service.

On the other two aspects of the vote, the second one is contributions to B.C. Transit; this is for urban public passenger service. I asked a question the other day in regard to the increase in cost of urban passenger service, which is going up from 75 cents to $1.25. In a sense, Mr. Chairman, during this recession this is an increased cost to the poor. When I'm down here in the Legislature in Victoria, I notice the number of people who travel on the buses, particularly in Victoria, and I find that the majority of passengers are female. Statistics Canada shows the figures of employment and cost to females in our society at the lower end of the scale. I wonder how the minister will explain a 67 percent increase in bus fares in the mainland during a time of difficulty for a lot of individuals who are going to work. A good phrase last week was that sometimes we don't talk enough about the employed and talk too much about the unemployed. Here is one issue about the people who are employed in this province and the increased cost of bus fare.

Another aspect on this.... I know we'll be dealing with Bill 10 right after this in regard to transit also, which is the bill the minister brought in, but a concern I have, Mr. Chairman — I was going to ask a question about it last week, but I just didn't have the time — is in regard to the Fraser Valley and the bus service in regard to the sale of PCL in the Fraser Valley. What assurances can the minister give that transit from that growing area in this province will continue so that individuals won't find themselves strapped getting into the downtown areas? It is an increased cost, but it is a worthwhile service, and the sale of PCL could cause problems for individuals who live in that particular region of the mainland. That's one question where I hope the minister will state that there would be continuing progress, and assurances that there will be no cutbacks in bus service from the Fraser Valley into Vancouver.

The third aspect of vote 76 on transit service is the provincial transit subsidy. As we all know, the PCL is in the process of being sold, and last year $7.1 million was contributed by the province to the urban bus service. This year, with the sale of PCL, there is nothing, which makes sense. But my concern, as I mentioned about the Fraser Valley and the PCL, is that we've cut back $7.1 million from the budget, and what services are going to be restored to people in the Fraser Valley as well as through the zonal aspects of B.C. Transit?

Another question to the minister. With the sale of PCL, does the minister believe that the province is going to make a profit? I know we can't sell the assets of PCL and then not acquire some type of a profit, but since PCL was purchased more or less with taxpayers' dollars, can the minister give assurances to the House that we are going to gain some type of profit from the selling of PCL?

Another aspect on the transit service estimates that has come up in the last few weeks is the controversy surrounding bus service with the closing of the motor vehicle inspection branch, and the responsibility for safety in this province. I know the minister has given a detailed statement to a comment I had directed to her last week, and I appreciate it; but now more and more responsibility will be placed on the private sector in continuing safety of buses. Whether it's the public sector or the private sector, I don't think that bus safety should be pushed to a secondary category. I would hope that the minister can guarantee the safety of the general public when it comes to the closing of the motor vehicle inspection branches.

[4:00]

On the matter of B.C. Transit, I have a letter dated February 3, 1984, signed by Larry Ward, assistant general manager, B.C. Transit. It is one paragraph, and I would like to read a part of it into the record.

"A forecast of Vancouver regional transit expenditures, system revenue and local tax revenue for 1983-84 compared to the original budget is provided in the attached table. Due to a lower level of expenditure being experienced than was originally anticipated when the budget was prepared, coupled with an underestimation of interest revenues and 1982-83 surplus local revenues" — and this is the part of concern to me, Mr. Chairman — "it is expected that the local transit fund will have a surplus of $4,341,488 at the end of the 1983-84 fiscal year. The reduced level of expenditure is also expected to allow B.C. Transit's financial obligations to be met with the level of approved funding."

My concern is with this $4 million surplus from last year. What plans does the minister have to use this surplus? Is it going to purchase new buses, to continue bus services in the lower mainland on the routes that are provided by B.C. Transit at this time?

Another aspect, and I won't read this entire letter into the record. In one from the Independent Canadian Transit Union they are talking about some of the transit services being cut. ".... . Slashed, And There Are More Cuts Planned, " is the title, and they are asking why there is standing room only on your bus, or why two full buses passed you by before you finally got to.... . or stood when you had to wait an hour for your suburban bus, or why it takes you longer and longer to get into Vancouver. I will quote some figures from the transit union. I am sure my honourable friend from Surrey will probably refute some of the figures in this, but it states some

[ Page 3723 ]

of the cutbacks to B.C. Transit and MTOC. It is talking about 231,648 fewer hours of service this year over last year. It seems a lot of hours to be cut back. The few times that I've taken the bus when it has become a necessity because of being down in the mainland while my truck is still up north, I've noticed during rush hour periods the extreme crowding on the bus. It does take a long time sometimes to get back into the suburbs. I would like the minister's comments on some of these cutbacks that the Independent Canadian Transit Union is speaking about.

Another aspect I would like to talk about before we get on to Bill 10 — some comments will be made about the real estate aspect of the station surrounding the ALRT, which will be left for the bill — is the sale of Pacific Coach Lines. The following companies are taking over as of March 31, 1984. Pacific Coach Lines has provided an essential and good service in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island, and now it has been sold to four different companies: Maverick Coach Lines, Gray Line, Cascade Charter and International Stage Lines. It did provide excellent passenger service and had a good reputation for the quality of its service and drivers. The few times I took the coach line and crossed over to Vancouver from the capital, I always found excellent cleanliness on the coaches.

As I mentioned earlier regarding the PCL, is the province going to make a profit from the sale? I certainly hope the province isn't selling the assets of a company — a Crown corporation per se — that did provide excellent service in the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland, and on Vancouver Island....

Interjection:

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, I had mentioned that earlier, but one of my concerns is with Expo 86 coming upon us and the government's policy in regard to Expo 86 and the slogans. I'm wondering why they are selling the PCL at this time. Can the minister give assurances to this House that areas in the Fraser Valley, the lower mainland and throughout Vancouver Island won't suffer because of the sale of the PCL?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: We're going to start this again with my honourable friend. It must be a disease you pick up once you serve a little while in Ottawa — lip jaundice or something like that.

I have a number of other questions to ask the minister, but I don't want to get too many questions directed to the minister at one time. Sometimes they get lost in the shuffle. I would appreciate a response to the seven or eight questions that I directed to the minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I thank the members for their interest in B.C. Transit.

First of all, I would like to say, so that the member can be apprised and ready, that the bill we're going to be debating sometime on the floor of the House is Bill 10. It has nothing to do with real estate. ALRT has reference to real estate. So if he has some questions on real estate that he wants answered, this is the time to do it, not during the bill.

One of the best services for the handicapped in this nation is the one that the member has drawn attention to. We're very proud of that service and it is truly held up as a model throughout North America. You asked about the budget dollars. The service itself has been expanded, and the added funds are for subsidizing fares. I think that answers the question.

The second question was one which interests the chairman of our committee. I have had a great deal of interest expressed by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), because of the concern regarding the sale of PCL and how it affects the Fraser Valley. Other members of this House have also expressed concern. So it's timely that we mention that we did have bids for three portions of the overall line. We are pleased to tell you today that there are several applications pending at the Motor Carrier Commission to fill the void which the member has brought to the attention of the House. Members such as the member for Dewdney and the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) have spoken to me about the Fraser Valley routes. By the time we get to the end of this month, which is the magic date when the turnover of PCL and the subsidy ends, I am pleased to tell you that we think we'll have a solution. We're very optimistic that we will. It has taken a lot of work by a lot of people to bring that to fruition.

The subsidy is the saving, talking of profit in the Pacific Coach Lines sale. Each and every year, as you know, there is a $7 million or $8 million subsidy — it was very much higher than that before these last two or three years. But that will be the greatest saving to the taxpayers — the greatest profit, if you like. Certainly there will be some cash when the transaction is finished, when the assets are sold, etc. May I assure you that when the total deal is complete, all of the information regarding how much money was made on it and so on will be made public as soon as possible after the sale is complete. I can make that commitment to you at this time, but I can't give you the figures. I will be pleased to do that.

The question of safety is very important to all of us. Motor vehicle branches were not responsible for buses, with the exception of the Victoria area. The motor vehicle inspection branch does not affect our bus safety, but BCT has an inspection program throughout the province. Again, I would like it to be known that the new owners of PCL will be using the very effective safety facilities, which they have arranged to lease and then perhaps to buy in the future — certainly to lease the facility for the next five years — with the same staff and the same excellent service that has been given to the PCL buses heretofore. I think that has been well looked after in the sale, and we have been able to.... I think we can assure you that the sale has been taken care of. Of course, B.C. Transit insists on that safety standard in all of the buses throughout the province. That will be adhered to in the future as it has been in the past.

You talked about the $4 million. We did collect $4 million more than we needed because of the efficiencies that the board has been able to effect in the system. Let me pay tribute to two members of this House for the help that they have been able to give me and B.C. Transit. The member who has just taken his seat has made reference to both ALRT, the new rapid transit facility which we are building — a very exciting program — and also he has made comment about MTOC and the bus systems in Vancouver and Victoria. I want you to know that a lot of the success for both of those has been because of the very able people who have worked with me. I have mentioned both members for Surrey who at one time served on the board: the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), who no longer serves on the MTOC board, and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), who is the chairman of

[ Page 3724 ]

that board and continues to devote a lot of his time to that very effective and much appreciated board. Also, my colleague for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has had one of the most effective committees in our rapid transit program. We are very appreciative of the work that he has done working with many city councils. It is no mean feat having put together a rapid transit line in the short time that we have had. I want to pay tribute to those members who have served so capably and the boards they serve with, and I'd like the House to recognize that service, as I do every day that I work with them.

[4:15]

On that point I want to also say that we are very fortunate that we have some good people in all of the systems. As I mentioned, the $4 million was able to be gleaned from the system through efficiencies, and that $4 million, because of efficiencies, will be used to offset next year's cost at the local level. In other words, we will be able to reduce costs in the local communities because of those savings. You wanted to know if it would buy buses, etc., but the answer is that it will help offset the local share.

Could I just address the business of standing room only on buses. All through North America — and certainly if you had seen the newscast on the Japanese system.... People stand on buses all over the world, and the cost of removing that would be prohibitive. I don't think we're ready to address that this year, and probably not for many years to come. They stand in buses all over the world, and experience shows that we haven't had any problems in that regard.

You referred to rush hours. There has been no diminution of rush-hour service. We are tailoring the hours to the ridership, and when you see hours reduced, it's because of reduced ridership. I know that no member of this House wants us to run buses that only have one or two people in them. They want it to be an efficient service — and an efficient service it is, Mr. Chairman.

B.C. Transit has had an agreement with Expo, and has been working a long time on this, and we have a very good working relationship with the principals of Expo 86. When that tremendous fair, with 18 million to 20 million visitors, takes place, a lot of transportation is going to be needed. A great deal of service will be provided. B.C. Transit has an agreement with Expo to facilitate and organize that. They will be working with both our own and private bus services in that regard, and when that happens and the fair hits the city of Vancouver for six months, there will be a smooth transition.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's comments, and am taking some notes on some of her statements. I agree with the minister on the efficiency, but what I don't agree with, in talking about the $4 million surplus, is the aspect of reduced costs that you mentioned. I think anybody who has had anything to do with something like B.C. Transit understands that reduced cost.... If we're having a reduced cost, why then the increase in the fares from 75 cents to $1.25?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: They're zonal fares, that's right. But if we have a $4 million profit, and we're talking about efficiency, why increase bus fares 67 percent in these times of restraint? It is difficult enough for a lot of single parents or individuals, or even the unemployed people who have to go out and look for jobs, to have to pay an additional 67 percent in zonal fares.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

Another comment I'd like to make is about the annual service plan from B.C. Transit, dated October 1983. It talks about performance targets: ridership is 89,000,000 for this year, and next year, 90,000,000, up approximately 1 percent; service hours, 2,700,000 down to 2,600,000; service kilometres, 54,900,000 down to 54,000,000; efficiency.... I look at some of the short-term planning activities. They talk about discontinuing evening and Sunday service on the beach route due to low ridership and the existence of alternative....

I understand that you have to cut back on an aspect of this. Firstly, bringing Sunday and holiday mid-day service in line with loading standards. Secondly, adjusting late-night service after midnight in line with passenger demand. I understand that you just can't have a bus running at 3 o'clock in the morning back and forth if nobody is going to get on it. I understand that part, but what I don't understand, and wish the minister would give me some indication on, is some of the long-range planning activities of B.C. Transit with the $4 million. The first one is North Burnaby, the second is UBC, and the third one they make reference to in this report is North Vancouver.

I would just like to read this quote after these three route scheduling plans: "The implementation of the service plan in its entirety, and accordingly the schedule identification in this report, will result in achieving the primary objective of accommodating a projected 1 percent increase in transit ridership demand, while at the same time improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system." Great, but my concern is with your $4 million. Why the cutbacks in some of the routing and also some of the services provided by B.C. Transit? We've seen some drivers laid off because of low demand, and I'm wondering why the cutting back when it seems that more and more people are using our bus system.

I'd like to make a second comment on this report by B.C. Transit that was signed by Larry Ward. It said the tax on gasoline was $15 million last year and $13 million this year. How did you achieve a $2 million savings in the gas tax? If you have something, I'd sure like to be able to pass it on to some of the people up in my constituency — not that you've cut back, but you've saved $2 million in gas tax. I'd sure like to know how we in the north could save....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, you're saying that you've cut back on the consumption here on the routing schedules. You're cutting back on kilometres travelled by the buses themselves; you're down in service kilometres from 54,900,000 to 54,000,000 — you've dropped 900,000 kilometres of service.

MR. REID: You're talking about surcharge on gasoline, Al, versus consumption of diesel fuel. It's not in your....

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you for the side comments there.

Interjection.

[ Page 3725 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Okay. Thank you, I'd appreciate that.

Those were a few more questions that I direct to the minister. I appreciate the minister's statement in regard to ALRT and real estate. A concern I had was a package distributed by B.C. Transit regarding real estate around the testing stations, approximately an eight-page report in which it used references....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: About testing stations?

MR. PASSARELL: I'm sorry; not testing stations, but the stations on the routing itself.

It was approximately an eight-page report, which was basically from the United States and other world capitals where they have rapid transit, and it talked about how the real estate is a good profit. I'm wondering if you're devoting a lot of time to selling real estate around the transit stations, because I would hope that the government wouldn't be into the real estate business while they're trying to find hundreds of millions of dollars — almost $1 billion — for the ALRT stations. If you're distributing this type of real estate brochure, it could be a bit more reliable in regard to Canadian real estate instead of talking about real estate in Tokyo or in the United States. Those were a few more questions I had, and I have a couple of colleagues who would like to address comments to the minister regarding transit in their areas of the province.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The published information that is available, and which is asked for by people who are in the business of developing property, is only in reference to other countries or other provinces, because we haven't had the experience. That's why it refers to other places. But also it's given on request and is only for realtors. No, we are not in the real estate business. We don't plan to get into it. The sleeping giant of the lower mainland is the rapid transit line, because it means tremendous job creation opportunities. As has been proven over and over again throughout the world, for every place in Burnaby, New Westminster and Vancouver where there is a rapid transit station, the surrounding area for very many blocks around will have tremendous development. It means jobs, it means construction, and it means a whole new way of life for those communities. It gives a capability for us to have just a potential for job creation for very many years to come, not just at the very first flush of a line going through.

Let me give you an example. In Metrotown Burnaby, where my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon has a station, just the other night when we were there we were announcing we have two stations in that constituency. In those stations there's now, right this minute, on the drawing-board, $1 billion worth of new development. That's just the beginning. People in Burnaby, even seeing the line go through, don't even understand what it will do to the whole of the lower mainland. You can see it go up, but until those trains start carrying those thousands upon thousands of people — not just to Burnaby but from Burnaby to other parts of the lower mainland — this exchange of commerce and this economic impetus is just going to be fantastic for the province and for the people in those areas.

Please let me tell you that we're not in the real estate business. We'll put the line there, and we'll let the private sector and the private investors and the private developers and the people of British Columbia, with their investment money, make sure that that development goes on. We don't want to be in the real estate business.

The gas tax. This surcharge is based on the volume of gas sold. When that volume goes down, we get less. It doesn't have anything to do with us purchasing gasoline. It has to do with the surcharge. Our return is less when the sales are less, and because of the economy there's been less gasoline sold. It's just a reflection of the economy.

The zonal fare service introduces quality to the service in the lower mainland. There is a necessity for more dollars to be put into the system. For example, the lease of the new trolleys comes into effect in this coming fiscal year '84-85 at a cost of $4.5 million. That's just one cost I can tell you about off the top. There is a rationale, the board of directors felt, to bring the fare structure in the city of Vancouver in line with other metropolitan cities. It is not in line now, and it will bring it in line. Again, it's tailoring the fare to meet the ridership and also the usage. It's tailoring it to the demand. We haven't laid off any bus drivers in Vancouver or Victoria. You made that comment. I understand from the chairman of MTOC that we have laid off two. Is that right?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not for two years? Oh, I thought you were putting up your hand that we laid off two. We have not for two years laid off bus drivers. The chairman of the board should know that, because that all comes to the board on a very detailed basis. I don't think the information that you have is correct on that.

I think I've covered everything you asked. I hope I did. If there's anything more I'd be glad to answer it.

[4:30]

MR. ROSE: I have a couple of minutes of remarks, and I would like to proceed with them while the minister is here.

I happen to represent a suburban riding at the very edge of the extension of the buses. They don't go beyond my riding up the valley, across the Pitt River. They just go to Port Coquitlam. The whole business about the PCL not being able to serve the Fraser Valley is of interest to me, but not as much interest to me as it was once, because it's not my responsibility to go beyond the Pitt River or the Wild Duck Inn, which we use as a marker. I received a phone call the other day about a man who rides the buses. He's an office worker; he goes downtown from Port Coquitlam every day. He has been doing it on the buses for a number of years at 75 cents a shot, and now, because of a new zonal arrangement coming in, he's facing $1.25 each way per day. A great number of people riding the bus into Vancouver, including my own son-in-law, are faced with the same thing.

I don't want this day to go by without my being able to stand up here and protest this on behalf of my constituents, because they will want me to do this. We have a large ridership, we have a large bus assembly yard in Port Coquitlam and a lot of buses emanate from Port Coquitlam, but with the new zone arrangement the increase is going to be, as my friend said, about 67 percent. It's going to amount to probably $2.50 a day, and the increase is roughly $20 a month. It could be argued that it's going to be difficult to avoid keeping the subsidies from getting higher as a result of current costs, but at the same time, while we're cutting back on people services in education, welfare and all these other things,

[ Page 3726 ]

we're raising the cost 67 percent for my constituents and others like them who want to use the buses. They want to use the buses because they find it an efficient way of proceeding; they think the service has been good; they are not faced with a lot of expensive parking downtown; and they're concerned that they get whomped with a 67 percent increase when other services to people are being cut. So cut the services, reduce the number of routes, raise the price and complain then that the reason that you've got rid of some of the routes is because you had no ridership. That is a circuitous, chicken-and-egg kind of an argument, and I don't think it's appropriate.

We've got a $4-million surplus, we're told. I know we have an $80-million subsidy because my colleague the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) just told me. I make no pretence of being a person who is an expert on the business of buses, and I don't ride the buses myself, but the people who do are extremely concerned about this. I would like to say that there are those of us who believe that we should be actually reducing the cost of ridership on the buses, because riding buses is a good thing. You don't need as much in the way of roads and other kinds of services if you encourage more and more people to ride buses; we were doing that. This is likely to put more cars on the road. Now that is an unsupportable assertion that we're going to have fewer people.

The point I'm attempting to make is that I think that it will discourage people from riding these buses, and I think we should be going in precisely the opposite direction. We should be encouraging people on the buses, and in my view it's really, at this time, slightly immoral to do what we're going to do in terms of zoning. I know the counter-arguments to that; they'll say: "Well, why should somebody living way out there 30 miles away pay the same as someone, who is living downtown?" We have postage-stamp rates and other services, you know, where I think we should be providing urban and suburban services as alternatives to more roads and bridges. Now we're going to take $175 million and extend the ALRT to Surrey. That's fine. I don't think that that is unsupportable, but I do feel a little bit unhappy that at the same time the announcement is coming up for Surrey, that spur that was to go to Port Moody has received no similar announcement. It doesn't even go into Maillardville-Coquitlam, as far as I know.

The people in my riding are very dependent on the buses as public transport. We don't have a deal made with the CPR yet to make certain that they have that alternative in commuter rail — that's been dragging and dragging and dragging — and so it occurs to me that what we should be doing, instead of spending more money on roads and bridges, is spending money on services to buses to encourage more ridership rather than what I think is likely to be the reverse — an arrangement that may put more cars on the road. It's my view — since I don't use the buses — that people ride buses not because they like to but because they have to. Anything that discourages them from riding buses should be avoided.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member who has just taken his place has ended his statement by saying that people do not ride buses because they want to, but earlier he said they ride buses because they want to. I suggest there are probably two kinds of ridership, and I suppose he would agree with me.

He makes the point on behalf of a constituent from Coquitlam who has paid the 75 cent fare, which will now, because of the zonal fare, be increased to $1.25. The same point of concern has been made over and over again in the city of Vancouver, when someone who lives in the West End has to pay the same amount to go to downtown Vancouver. The board has looked at this whole situation over the years. In fact, the city of Vancouver has been adamant over the years that it should be fairer in the true sense of the word, and that the longer the ride is the greater the charge should be, rather than having a blanket amount all over. It will interest you to know that ten years ago that same person would have paid.... In fact, the fare actually was $1 at that time. So if we were to take inflation at its rampant best in the past decade, it would be very much more than $1.25 today had the fares just stayed the same and increased as everything else did. The cost, of course, in that decade has certainly accelerated, and for the amount that that person is paying, that's a very fair charge for that distance.

Let's address your concern about the person who has to go in every day. They work downtown, they live in Coquitlam or in White Rock, and they have to go downtown each and every day. They like to ride the bus, and they want to ride the bus, and in some cases they must ride the bus. What they are being offered, in this case.... They would obviously purchase a pass because a pass is $50 a month. It would give them the full 30 to 31 days of ridership — they could go into town for a Saturday as well as their five working days. It would give them all the days of the month for $50. You make the argument that there isn't any parking area in downtown Vancouver that you can find for that kind of money. I think the least expensive that I've known in downtown Vancouver in recent months is about $80 a month. So besides your gasoline, your wear and tear on your car, your oil and depreciation.... There would be no comparison. There is just no contest with what it is to ride the bus on a pass.

If you want to make the same analogy, it's still cheaper.... For example, I understand cigarettes are very close to $2 a package. The same person who complains about a very good value from Coquitlam to downtown will still continue to destroy his health by smoking.

MR. ROSE: C'mon, Gracie.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That's another argument, I know. But at the same time I make the point that it really is a very good bargain. The bus pass for $50 is a very good purchase, and it is very reasonable when one considers that across North America it compares very favourably to other jurisdictions. I think you'll find that will be acceptable, and when you consider the past decade — when you consider $1 to $1.25 — it's really very reasonable.

I thank the member for his comments.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm just rising to say a few words about Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. My father drove Pacific Stage Lines buses for 20 years of his life, from 1947 until he died in 1967. He was union chairman for Pacific Stage Lines drivers for 15 years. He was very proud of the service that he and his fellow workers provided: drivers, mechanics, sales agents, ticket agents and that type of thing. His family was also proud of the service that was provided, not simply under B.C. Hydro, for whom he worked for most of the period, but also when it was privately owned by a man named Ivor Neil back in the 1940s. It was then purchased by Dal Grauer and the B.C. Electric Co. and then later, as B.C. Electric was

[ Page 3727 ]

purchased by the W.A.C. Bennett government .

He worked through the whole period.

MR. WALLACE: It was expropriated.

MR. SKELLY: No, B.C. Electric purchased the service from Ivor Neil way back in the 1940s or early fifties. But in any case he put a lot of his life and his time into it and, as I say, he was very proud of the service. I still know many of the drivers who worked at the time that my father worked there and are driving that bus line today, even though my father has been dead for 14 years. I still know many of the drivers and know of their pride in the service they provided in the Fraser Valley, Vancouver, Victoria and up and down Vancouver Island. I think it's regrettable that the service has been broken up and privatized. The minister answered, in response to a question from the member for Atlin, about the savings in terms of the subsidy to the bus line, which amounted to something like $8 million to $9 million a year.

When you look through the budget and the estimates of the provincial government, there are many, many areas in which we subsidize private industry. We subsidize them to the tune of much more than we were paying Pacific Coach Lines to keep that service intact, which was a very good service. For example, look at the waste management branch of the Ministry of Environment, which has as its sole function providing pollution control permits and monitoring pollution control permits for industry, municipalities and for private enterprise. It costs the taxpayers of this province close to $9 million to subsidize that operation every single year. No fees are charged for permits to pollute in this province; the same is true of pesticide permits. We subsidize pesticide permits in the province to the tune of half a million dollars. It seems that there's no general principle applied to subsidies. We seem to be willing to provide those subsidies when it comes to pollution control and pesticide permits, but when it comes to a service that is useful, that is needed and is provided very efficiently and effectively by the drivers and the staff of Pacific Coach Lines, this is an area where the government seems to think that we should get rid of the service by privatizing it.

[4:45]

They don't really seem to care what happens to the employees of the service. It's those employees that I'm concerned about. I'm concerned, I guess, because of my family's involvement in that bus line over many, many years. There have been headlines in the paper recently that out of all the drivers in Pacific Coach Lines — and mechanics and ticket agents — very few have been assured any employment in the new operations. I'm hoping the minister is listening. For these people, who have invested all of their lives, who have invested more, in fact, than their time.... They've done more than put in eight hours a day. I think it's recognized worldwide. For tourists who come to this province, it's recognized that the courteous service provided by those drivers, the efficient service that's provided by those mechanics, the safety of the service and also the courtesy of the ticket agents and sales agents, is without equal anywhere. I'm concerned about what is going to happen to the drivers, mechanics and the agents, because these are the people who have really invested everything to make sure that this group of bus lines has been recognized across Canada and North America as being among the best, safest and most courteous. I'm wondering what provisions the minister has made to make sure that there are some transition procedures, to make sure that those drivers and employees are guaranteed employment in any new service that's developed and to make sure that after 20 and 30 years of service they're not just left on the bricks to fend for themselves. Those are the people that I'm really concerned about. What is the minister doing?

Occasionally when a mill shuts down in the province in industries, such as the forest or mining industries, Canada Employment and Immigration centres get involved in finding jobs for people. The companies get involved in establishing committees to make sure that the people who were formerly employed in those plants get work elsewhere or are assigned elsewhere or receive early retirement provisions. In any case, transition provisions are made to guarantee that those drivers aren't simply left after investing 20 to 30 years of their lives with that company. I'm wondering what provisions the ministry has made itself or in conjunction with other ministries to make sure that those drivers are provided for and to make sure that there is employment provided for in some of these new privatized operations that succeed Pacific Coach Lines.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate the question and the concerns. Always, no matter what the circumstances, we're concerned with staff that is dislocated in any way. I share the same concern. The board has made very good provision. It's a very fine compensation package that has been put together. It gives options. As you know, first off I have to say that there will be a need for some of that staff to, of course, be taken over by the new organizations, and I think that they will certainly work towards that. They've indicated that they would. But the board has made provisions for a very fair compensation package. It includes relocation counselling, as well as, for those who are at the retirement age or very close to it, opportunities for early retirement and so on. It's a very fair package. I haven't got details of it with me, but I could get them.

I just felt that when I was charged with the responsibility of winding up the company.... I certainly agree with you that it's been a very good service and very well operated. It really was my hope that it would stay intact in total. I really had hoped that that could have been put together by the employees themselves, and that would have been a very good experience, I think. However, that didn't come to pass, and now the next thing that I had hoped that the board would do — and they certainly have — is to make fair provision. That is well taken care of. I'd like to assure the member that that is so.

MR. SKELLY: Well, thanks to the minister for that comment, but you mentioned the provision for "some" of the staff, and also for counselling for employment elsewhere. That's not really much of a provision for somebody who's been involved in the service for 20 or 30 years — to try to seek employment elsewhere. When you're doing away with one of the major bus companies operating in the province, and people who have given 20 and 30 years of service, it doesn't really help to counsel them to try to learn to become welders or to look for employment as bus drivers elsewhere.

How many of the staff have been provided for in this way? I'm wondering if the minister has any details. How many people will be left without employment altogether as a result of this privatization process? There is one way that the minister could have kept the whole operation together. But apparently for ideological reasons we see that the service is going

[ Page 3728 ]

to be sold, and if necessary, to get rid of it, we're going to see it broken up. It doesn't have to be done. As I mentioned, we are subsidizing other services of the provincial government. An example is pollution control. We subsidize that to the same extent annually that we subsidize Pacific Coach Lines. How many of these drivers are going to be employed in the successor services and how many drivers, mechanics and ticket agents are going to be completely left out?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell the member for Alberni the exact numbers. The reason is that the agreement for sale is in place for those three places. Other portions of the line are making applications to the Motor Carrier Commission, but it will be the Motor Carrier Commission that does the licensing. We don't do the licensing. The licensing has to be done by the Motor Carrier Commission. It is they who make the decision.

MR. COCKE: You have no influence in that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, they will make the decision as to how many will be on those new services, so it's too early to give you that information. It isn't available, and I can't give it to you at this point in time.

MR. SKELLY: But the minister has made no arrangements in the sales agreements or the contracts to provide that those drivers would be carried from one service to the next?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the agreements are made separately between the purchasers and the union. That is in their hands. That isn't anything that I can answer at this point in time.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a very local issue that I would like to raise. That deals with Valley Transport. The minister may recall that that particular system was started in the Year of the Disabled with a sizable grant that enabled the volunteer society in the Cowichan area to start a bus which has managed by hook or by crook to continue operating year after year on a sort of handout basis. Every year the same crisis arises: "The funding is out. Where are we going to get funding to carry this on?" That service is the only public transit that we have in the area serving local needs, apart from Pacific Coach Lines, which, of course, goes up and down the Island Highway. But that particular service has provided transportation in the Duncan, Chemainus and Lake Cowichan areas, and it provides it for handicapped people, shut-ins, older people and seniors. It's a very valuable part of our whole community.

I picked up the local paper this morning and saw that Valley Transport is in trouble again. "Funding is running out. What are we going to do?" Jerry Rothstein, who is the head of the volunteer association in the valley, is hopeful — Jerry is the eternal optimist and so far it's paid off. There have been representations made to North Cowichan municipality, I believe — local government, anyway — to institute a system under the Urban Transit Authority legislation. I imagine this would come under the heading of custom bus service, which I understand has about the same amount of funding this year as last. But I wonder whether or not the minister can assure us that if that is the case — if there is some funding being paid to Valley Transport — that funding will continue under the Urban Transit Authority. If not, can she tell me what the status is relative to any development of a transportation system for the area — Duncan, Chemainus, Cowichan, Lake Cowichan and so on. I know there have been some studies undertaken and some contact between her and, I believe, the municipality of North Cowichan, which are involved rather than the regional district board.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I'm not specifically familiar with that name, but that may well be just a lapse of memory. I may have had correspondence on it. I think it would be treated like all others who have a service and make requests of the board. The board takes those requests and within their capability will fund them. If the service is needed and we have the dollars to provide, we will. I'm not clear that we now fund it. Is it funded by us now?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not sure. I think grants are coming now, and I think that the last year they were actually funded from a federal grant.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, we're not familiar with it and it doesn't strike a note with the general manager of B.C. Transit either. It is probably a service which started, as all good services do, by somebody meeting a need. As they require more money to keep it going, they have grants from different places or even charge the ridership, etc. When the service becomes sophisticated enough in a large enough area and demand-driven, they really come to us then and say: "This service has established a need. There are so many riders. It is particularly for the handicapped." They make application to us, and they're dealt with by a board of directors which assesses the need, and within the moneys available to them they will meet it. I can't give you assurances, but I will be glad to took into it if you'll bring it to my attention.

MRS. WALLACE: For the minister's edification, I will repeat that the service began under the auspices of her ministry at the time of the International Year of Disabled Persons. A sizable grant was set aside under that funding, which got us going. Since then it's been a piecemeal thing. I would like the minister to confirm for my information if in fact there is no local government involved in providing a transit service under the Urban Transit Authority. Is the board still prepared to make a grant separate and apart from an urban transit system to a specific service such as Valley Transport?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The financing is always done through either a city council or a regional district. But that would fall under regional districts, so it would be applicable to that.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to disappoint the minister. She obviously doesn't want to have her estimates close without some comment from her favourite opposition member, particularly with respect to transit.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: When is Emery going to get up again?

MR. LAUK: We run a good-guy, bad-guy routine in Vancouver Centre — very successfully, I might add. What do we call ourselves? Coca-Cola — everybody knows us.

[ Page 3729 ]

[5:00]

I want to just mention a few things on transit. It's like pulling teeth when dealing with Social Credit members, particularly in British Columbia. The Tory, right-wing people elsewhere seem to have a little better handle on this than the Socreds, but it's a philosophical as well as economic concept that I hope is getting home. I know the minister understands it, but she has trouble dealing with that neo-simian cabinet that sometimes does not really grasp that we're moving into the eighties and that the eighties and nineties and the turn of the century promise some difficult times for us in terms of transportation.

The reason for that is, I submit, a drastic change in attitude, based on a number of economic factors, towards the private automobile. I know the Social Credit government has been dragged kicking and screaming into the eighties and to face reality, and have finally moved on rapid transit. As usual, they've moved in the wrong direction; however, we'll have to all live with that. The Pythagoreans still reign, Mr. Chairman. In any event, rapid transit is with us.

MR. REID: Hear, hear! Pier B-C!

MR. LAUK: Oh, good grief! The member for Surrey, who sells automobiles, may be interested in my comments about the private automobile.

I'd like to run through my resume to try to lend credibility to what I'm going to say. I have at times made predictions about the economic situation. I've even on occasion — and you may not recall this, Mr. Chairman — made a comment or two about a chartered bank. But in 1979 I pointed out that the first part of the 1980s would be a major recession. Even when I made my statement about the Bank of Commerce, no one will remember, except perhaps a few relatives of mine will remember, that I also said what the unemployment rate would be as it developed in the next year or two, and I was correct to the tenth of a percentage point. The members of the press said: "We'll watch him; he's wrong about the bank, and he's going to be wrong about this." Well, I was right about the bank, and I was right about unemployment and about what's happening to the economy. It's not that I'm equipped with a crystal ball; it's that I'm equipped with eyes and some modest degree of literacy. One can read various economic publications and find out that certain economic indicators are in store for us. I know that some people here will not be interested, but Hansard may survive the current economic onslaught, and somebody may in a moment of relaxation like to thumb through the remarks I make about the eighties and the nineties with respect to the private automobile.

As I say, there's going to be a major assault on the automobile. From the private economic side of it, energy costs, steel and materials will be such that the very expensive manufacture of private automobiles will begin to really be called into question. I'm not talking about the predictions that have been made for years now about the private automobile; I'm saying that a major assault will be made with respect to whether it is a priority of our economic system to have almost 20 percent of its resources invested in the manufacture, sale, service and so on of the private automobile.

The public costs, of course, are horrendous, as they always are. The highways and bridges, traffic control, health and environment are all factors which have been very expensive to the public purse, and I think that a rational priorization of public — that is, government — investment in the use of the private automobile is going to be reconsidered in the eighties and nineties. Academics and researchers will start, as they always do. The public will begin to get some information about the costs to them as individual citizens, taxpayers and users of a private auto, and they'll begin to realize that the economics are disastrous. They have been disastrous for some time — the widespread use of the private automobile — and they're going to be even more disastrous as energy and other materials and resources become more and more finite — apparent finiteness, as expressed in the information of the public.

The other factor that will limit the glamour of the use of the private automobile in the next 10 to 15 years will be downtown enhancement. Curtailing of the use of private automobiles will become a priority with more and more of the citizens of our communities. I'd like to say, with that in mind, that this minister has a heavy responsibility: ahead of public opinion, she must have the vision to understand that protecting and enhancing public transit is a very difficult job now but a very necessary one.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It's somewhat alarming that I get applause from people who I am absolutely convinced didn't understand one word of what I've said in the past ten minutes. However, I'll take it with the usual grain.

The minister must think seriously — and I am sure is about taking transit seriously. The problem of public transit is going to be a great one. The resources, as I say, will be so finite within the North American economy as to demand more and more public transit. It is not a thing of the past. We are not creating museum pieces; transit must be protected. With that in mind, I am very disappointed with the privatization of some of the systems. I know how attractive it is in a neo-conservative atmosphere to privatize transit services. There is no country in the world that doesn't subsidize its transit services — almost each and every one of them. If you allow for the full privatization of transit, then naturally the private citizen who has as an ultimate desire the maximization of profit will cream the system, to the extent that only those very lucrative and well-travelled transit portions will be available to the public, and the less lucrative, less accessible regions of the province — even the lower mainland in some districts and communities — will go wanting.

One of the great concerns in the valley.... I know that my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody has mentioned this but it deserves a re-emphasis: that Fraser Valley transport is very important to very many people. We have encouraged people to move out into suburban areas to take the heat off housing, if you like. The economic forces of housing costs have encouraged people to move into valley suburbs. Rather than to privatize the transit system, we should be further enhancing transit systems in the valley; we should, as a government, be enhancing it, being the catalyst for further private investment for that kind of thing. I think we'll have to get people out of the cars. If downtown enhancement becomes a real priority — and it soon will be in the city of Vancouver; that's my reading of the people and the leadership — then restriction of private auto use will become even more restricted in downtown areas. Already the cost of parking for regular commuters is prohibitive; the space provided for parking and travel is so limited that it becomes a real discomfort to take

[ Page 3730 ]

one's private auto into the downtown core at particular times of the day and evening.

Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I would hope that the minister has some long-range plans; and that this privatization is just a token gesture to the neo-simian right; that sober reflection on the future will prevail and a good plan for transit in the lower mainland and in the province generally will be forthcoming from this ministry. There has not been other than limited investigation....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: This is really interesting, Mr. Chairman. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) discovered that he understood one of the words I was using and he's so delighted that he wants the rest of us to celebrate his discovery.

I think the future is a demanding one for transit. As I said earlier, the provincial government has done very little about transit, other than to create a political storm from time to time with local authority. It has done very little about long-range planning. As a result, they have not used the people and resources that may be necessary to provide a long-range transit plan for the city and the lower mainland in particular, and other population centres of the province. There's a lot of talent there that could provide the ministry with that kind of information. It is my submission that we have not heard or seen anything of this for some years, and as a direct result will be caught napping again when the crunch comes. So I hope that the minister, who is always interested in these kinds of things, ignores the tendency to give in to her car-dealership friends and will deal with the transit system with both eyes on the future, with the idea that British Columbia will be second to none, instead of rather well below the standards of other communities with respect to transit.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Finally — and I will deal more extensively with this idea in Bill 10 — the fares of ridership should reasonably reflect some of the cost, but I think always the ministry should have a firm understanding that there is no public transit anywhere in the world that is not subsidized — none. There are some lines that run privately; there are some situations where a private company can make some money, but it's usually creaming and ignoring the full service to the public in all regions. As a result, transit therefore has to be subsidized. Should it be totally subsidized? Absolutely not; that's not a fair concept, and I don't think any party should propose that. I think the fares should be reasonable.

In the city of Vancouver, I think well over 80 percent of the cost of the full public transit is met by fares from the public. That's better than any other city in North America.

MR. REID: Thirty-five percent is met by fares, so I'm told.

MR. LAUK: That's not true. The hon. member for Surrey is.... I mean, it's so embarrassing that the government would make this man chairman of the MTOC; the man hasn't got a clue.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If there are ten inklings to a clue, I doubt whether he has an inkling, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Surrey says 35 percent in the city of Vancouver is met by fares.

MR. REID: Yes, 65 percent is met by taxpayers.

MR. LAUK: He says 35 percent is met by fares. Well, the figures from the MTOC, over which he has chairmanship, and from other sources disagree with his understanding of the figures, Mr. Chairman. The contribution by fares within the bounds of the city of Vancouver is the highest anywhere in North America, and the ridership in Vancouver should be congratulated for....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It's not true?

MR. REID: No, it's not. Get your facts straight.

[5:15]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, I won't; I'll continue with the speech.

The ridership in the city of Vancouver is almost the best in the whole world, and pretty near the best in North America as far as providing the percentage cost of the transportation system.

I think the people who are active in using the transit system, rather than being punished with further fare increases and reductions in services, should be encouraged. More ridership should be encouraged and greater service should be provided. That would be a forward-looking approach for transit in British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, regarding the first remarks from the member for Vancouver Centre regarding the privatization of Pacific Coach Lines, that is an intercity line, and that was the reason. We are well aware that public transit has been taken on by the government as a responsibility. It's shared at the local level, it's shared at the fare box by those who use the buses, and has probably the fairest cost-sharing formula in North America. The provincial government gives it tremendous support — 66 2/3 percent — I don't suppose there is a fairer financial formula anywhere. So it's not public transit that we were privatizing; it was an intercity service.

I thank you for the support for an integrated service. You made a lot of comments on an integrated, efficient and well-organized public transit system, and I just want to tell you that I am delighted to have the support from that member, who is obviously conscious of what public transit does for very many people in the province of British Columbia.

Vote 76 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

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

[ Page 3731 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to move second reading of Bill 10, B.C. Transit Amendment Act. It is an act which really pays tribute to and fulfils a promise made about 14 months ago.

Let me give you the background of the bill. In 1978 the province introduced legislation that created a Crown agency, B.C. Transit, with responsibility for coordination of planning and funding local transit systems throughout British Columbia. The B.C. Transit Act, formerly the Urban Transit Authority Act, was designed to provide a structure for establishing policy and a formula for financing public transportation. As a measure of success, Mr. Chairman, there are currently 54 annual operating agreements in the province for conventional, custom, handicapped and paratransit services.

British Columbia Transit's mission is to ensure that efficiently managed, optimum-capacity public transit services are provided to the three-quarters of British Columbia's population now served, The purpose in acting upon this challenge and mission, and as a measure of housekeeping, this amendment effectively creates regional transit commissions for the purpose of setting fares, determining service levels and raising the local share of operating deficits in the metropolitan areas. In the past these functions had been carried out by the Capital and Greater Vancouver Regional Districts. This amendment will transfer these functions to the newly created regional transit commissions and will parallel existing arrangements for municipalities.

In November 1982 the board of B.C. Transit recommended that the administrative structure for transit in the Vancouver and Victoria regions be amended. This was done in the context of the 1983-84 budget presentation and would result in savings of $8 million. Cabinet subsequently, in December 1982, approved the concept of appointing regional transit commissions in Vancouver and Victoria. Members of the transit commissions were appointed by order-in-council, and the supplementary letters patent of the Greater Vancouver and Capital Regional Districts were amended in February 1983.

The amendment that we are discussing in this bill features the establishment of regional transit commissions and an appointment process for membership to the commission. The majority of the amendment is devoted to creating authority for the commission in the area of cost-sharing for transit operating deficits that parallels the provisions for municipalities in the existing act. Other sections of the amendment deal with updating the original legislation by deleting references to British Columbia Hydro as an operator of transit services, by removing sections that are not applicable — i.e., original transfer of staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs — and introducing the variable mill rate to the local taxation sections, pursuant to recent legislation.

There is some urgency, Mr. Chairman, in introduction of this legislative amendment in order that the regional transit commissions can raise the local share of transit operating deficits in the new fiscal year 1984-85, and it further streamlines the administrative structure. But I do believe that the streamlining we've already done has been well received and that the projected savings of $8 million has been achieved in this past year.

This was really something that some 14, maybe even 16 months ago, was looked for by all of those people who have a system within the Capital Regional District and the Vancouver Regional District. I so move the second reading of this bill.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to give some background on why this bill is before us today. The idea that the minister has just spoken about, the single transit authority, is based on the same model as Toronto. The Toronto Transit Commission has a very similar program in existence. I think one of the reasons we're debating this bill in front of us today is because of a report done in March 1982: "Review of Organizational Requirements for Transit in the Lower Mainland." The report identifies the confusing and overlapping relationship between the Urban Transit Authority and the Metro Transit Operating Company as ineffective. Now we see this bill, which is almost the brainchild of Mr. Vander Zalm when he was minister. Further background on it: in December 1982 Mr. Vander Zalm announced his intention to eliminate the regional district role in transit. It was a role to centralize transit power entirely in the hands of the provincial government.

One of the problems with this bill is that it will have no independent staff or budget. The commissioners were clearly seen as ineffectual and this bill will further centralize power in the provincial government's hands. One of the concerns that I have is that Bill 10 represents an attempt to force municipal councils into an almost pro-development stance. If we look at the idea of recovery, with this bill in fact it's a real estate boom.

Bill 10 authorizes the regional transit commissions to apply a property tax to pay for the local share of transit deficits. The commissions are composed entirely of local mayors and elected officials. The B.C. Transit Authority has indicated its intention to change the financing of transit to increase the amount of fare-box revenues. As stated earlier, the current financing is 35 percent fare box and 65 percent subsidies; of that 65 percent subsidies, it's 66 percent province, 33 percent municipality. With the public in the province, particularly the lower mainland where this, will be applied and with the declining provincial transit subsidies, the commissions will be forced between increasing fares, increasing hydro and gas levies, or applying a property tax. If provincial subsidies are forced lower, then the commission will have no choice but to apply a property tax to maintain the transit system with users who have been accustomed to the program. I don't think this is the right time to start increasing property taxes for individuals who have already been forced into high property taxes in the lower mainland, and some of the problems with housing that we're finding.

Another argument which should be brought forward is that if the government increases property taxes, there should be a means by which local transit deficits are paid off. Property taxes aren't the proper idea.

Another issue is some of the positive alternatives to the current transit administration structure. Mayor Harcourt has long advocated a single regional transit authority in the province based on what this bill is bringing forward and the prior experience with the Toronto Transit Commission. At the first meeting of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission in March 1983, Mayor Harcourt proposed that the RTC

[ Page 3732 ]

consider itself an interim body whose task is to bring about the establishment of a single greater Vancouver transit authority.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, for this bill to be truly effective a local transit authority must have the power to plan, design, budget and to make amendments and agreements. Also, what this bill does not allow them to have is a staff which reports directly and is accountable. Bill 10 will provide none of these features to the regional transit commission.

Those are my opening remarks regarding this bill.

MR. LAUK: The only comment I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we seem to be losing track of a lot of very important and precious concepts of the British parliamentary system and our system of democracy. I think that no matter which way you slice it, under this bill the commission is an appointed commission and will be responsible for raising property and other taxes and levies. This is offensive to the concept of electing representatives who have the responsibility with respect to taxation and the raising of levies. I think we have to move away from that kind of silliness, because we are undermining a basic concept of our democratic system — the old "no taxation without representation" kind of thing.

It's not enough to say that those appointed have been elected to office in some other capacity. The point is that they should be and must be elected for the specific taxation purposes which are outlined in our structure of government. It's a neat way in which government can avoid taking the heat, I suppose, for raising taxes; but it's irresponsible. The raising of taxes should be only upon the recommendation of the commission to the properly elected people.

[5:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members who have raised questions, but I do hope that they won't leave this House and the public at large with some misconceptions about the bill.

This bill we are debating has nothing to do with any changes in how the regional transit commission raised funds. That was already established by the House. That is not the principle of the bill, so your comment regarding how dollars are raised by these regional transit commissions is not valid as it pertains to this bill. It is not addressing the principle of the bill.

I want to also say that Vancouver and Victoria are the only two cities in Canada that do not use property taxes to raise funding. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said that he's very fearful that this will just give them carte blanche to continue. It won't be continued, because it's never been there. As far as I know they are not using that, and we have not heard that they will. As you know, they use the Hydro surcharge and they also use the gasoline charge, but they do not use property tax for funding.

Let me respond to the member for Atlin, who is concerned about bureaucracy. What we did in the streamlining of the organization was eliminate the bureaucracy. We put the decision-making at the local level with locally elected people. It's very important that we talk about the locally elected people. They know the ground better than a bureaucracy, which would give direction from Victoria. They are municipal council representatives who know their particular area very well. They are the ones on the board. They are appointed, as the member from Vancouver has suggested, but their first obligation....

I'm sure that all of us understand that civic elected people's first obligation will be to the city or the community that they serve. Those increase-of-fare decisions are made by the board — these elected officials. They know, too, that if they increase beyond the ability to pay, they will be responsible. It's really a very good formula, because they also know that if they increase services beyond the ability of people to pay, they will be responsible for that at the local level. But that does not mean to say that in any way we get a second-class system. We don't. We have always the demands meeting that board. The demands are put before that board by the people who are using the service. They had the same options under this act that they had before under the regional districts. There's really no change in that regard. There's nothing complicated about this. What we are doing in this bill is just tidying up that which was promised some 14 or 15 months ago, in order to streamline the system, the delivery of the program they are setting, and the service-setting, which we believe is very well taken care of by elected officials at the local level.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered any questions that have been asked on the bill, and I take pleasure in moving that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 10, British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1984, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, sitting in this House a matter of an hour ago or less, I heard the House Leader report that the Committee of Supply would be called "next sitting." That was a resolution that was passed in this House just a little while ago.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was out of the chamber at the time the motion was made, if that, indeed, was the motion.

I call adjourned debate on Motion 29.

Amendment negatived.

On the motion.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, not reflecting upon a vote that just took place in this House, I would like to say that I believe it will be in the government's best interest in the future — it strikes me that they haven't paid much attention to this in the past — to have a fairer proportional representation on the committees of this House. Two to one is not the proportion of the membership of the House, nor should it be on the committees.

Motion 29 approved.

[ Page 3733 ]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, now that some intervening business is a fact, I ask leave to return to Committee of Supply.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 20: minister's office, $151,016.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It seems that the House Leader has had little experience in dealing with these matters, between the various chairs he sits in. I wonder that I was once his understudy in these matters!

It also seems that it hasn't been very long since we recently viewed the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. However, there have been some developments in the intervening five weeks since we last discussed my estimates.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Some of them are positive, and they won't take very long.

The most exciting one was the announcement by Gulf Oil of their successful oil find in the Helmet area of northeastern British Columbia, and there are now some 300 men working on this particular project. I had the opportunity to visit it last month, and it's very encouraging to see a major oil discovery coming forward in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Where is it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's in the Helmet area, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Do you own any shares?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's a matter of public record that I don't. I'm responding to your questions; perhaps it would be easier if I responded to them after my official remarks.

Just as a matter of interest, this camp, which has over 300 people in it, is serviced by a 7,000-foot runway and a regular service with an ancient four-engine transport known as a Vickers Viscount, like I used to fly in my misspent youth.

It's very encouraging, because this one oilwell which was originally spotted for gas turned out to be an oilwell. Others are being drilled as well, and it may involve us in expanding the Sierra-Yoyo road.

The other rather encouraging thing that has happened is, of course, the decision by Westcoast Transmission and PetroCanada to build an advanced gas liquids project with a scrubbing plant at Taylor. That takes the gas liquids, which are normally coming down the Westcoast Transmission line, out of the gas and, instead, uses those in British Columbia, which means that for the first time we will be much closer to self-sufficiency in both propane and butane, and we'll have an export of ethane as opposed to importing it from Alberta.

There are some interesting developments happening in coal. While members have all reflected on developments in coking coal and steaming coal, a major development in the northeastern part of the province is possible with anthracite coal, of which there is not a large world supply at the present time.

The Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline is proceeding through the public-hearing phase, and I would hope that there will be some resolution coming forward in the next...not too long. We've had some improvements with the introduction of the Govier gas-marketing scheme and the possibilities for export of LNG through the western LNG terminus. I met again this morning with people from Nissho Iwai and Dome to try to facilitate what can be done by the governments of British Columbia, Alberta and Canada, in seeing that this project, which would serve us all very well in British Columbia, does proceed. I remain optimistic. I think that the realization by the government of Alberta of what long-term gas markets are south of the border will make this project seem all that much more realistic.

Another point I wanted to make is the fact that B.C. Hydro has been successful in negotiating the medium-term export of surplus electricity to the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Water and Power. This will mean additional revenues to the Crown through the water tax, and also to B.C. Hydro, and it will be reflected in smaller increases in rates when they do apply.

One of my colleagues gave me a notice of rate increase for the state of Washington on one of their public power utilities, and 27 percent, hon. members, is what they asked for. I can assure you that we can all bask in the reflected glory of not having entertained the idea of constructing nuclear power plants, as our neighbours to the south have done.

We have some very encouraging developments in the gold fields. The number of claims that have been staked and the number of people who wish to endeavour to do exploration in gold will certainly affect some of the communities in positive ways. With the increase in the price of gold, the development may continue.

MR. LAUK: A $10 increase?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, it makes a major difference in some areas. It makes a difference between being in business or not.

Copper does remain a rather gloomy picture with the amount of production being done in Zambia, Zaire and Chile at a subsidized level, which has subsidized and cheap labour and a whole host of other activities.

MR. LAUK: Excuses, excuses.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, definitely.

The last thing, I guess, that is interesting to reflect upon is that Vancouver Island is experiencing a very small but significant return of interest by people in the Nanaimo area to reopen some of the coal pits. There is production in two of those pits now, so that the Ladysmith-Nanaimo area will be another part of British Columbia which is involved in the extraction and production of coal.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is a fine report for someone who has been away from this House for, I believe, four weeks since we last discussed my estimates. I look forward to answering those questions which may be addressed by members opposite.

[ Page 3734 ]

[5:45]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, this is rather unusual, but the hour is late and we have a member in this House who unfortunately is probably going to be absent tomorrow, so I would like to defer my questions for the minister at this time to the member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the member for Mackenzie. Fortunately, I will be in my riding tomorrow and not in the House to debate this minister's estimates.

I wanted just for a moment, on the mining side of this portfolio, to talk to this House about a pet peeve of mine and also of many constituents of mine and many other British Columbians, and that is the Mining (Placer) Act. Mr. Chairman, there is a particular clause in the Mining (Placer) Act which gives the government the power to designate the areas which can or cannot be staked for placer claims in this province. It gives the government the authority, really, to say where gold should or should not or can or cannot be found in this province.

This clause and this act have been on the statute books of this province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am sure you realize that you are out of order in dealing with that matter at the moment. We're actually here to deal with the administrative duties related to the minister's office.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I'm talking about the Mining (Placer) Act, which is under the supervision of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in the province. I wish at this time to speak about that particular act and a clause in that act which is causing the placer miners great difficulty in this province. If I can't speak of this particular act in the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please, hon. member. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Agriculture and Food on a point of order.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the 19th edition of Sir Erskine May, on page 741, is perhaps the citation that you require. "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be discussed in supply on a substantive motion, and not in general debate."

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I think it's the duty of any Minister of Mines, through his office and through his administration, to ensure that the people of this province are well served. It is for that reason that I stand in this minister's estimates to speak about an act which is under his control. In my estimation and in the estimation of many placer miners in this province, Mr. Chairman, it needs some change. It is in that light that I speak at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I really don't have to go into this. I've talked about this particular subject time and time and time again in this House. I think it's about time that that change is made. Whether you're going to allow me the time to speak in these estimates on this subject or not, I ask you only — and I ask the members here and the people of British Columbia — to go back and peruse the speeches that I have given on this subject in 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979 and probably for four or five years before that. Mr. Chairman, if you call me out of order or not, I'm going to bring it to the attention of this House that that clause — and the minister is very aware of it — in the Mining (Placer) Act of this province needs change, and it must have that change immediately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. member is finished, the Chair recognizes the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order that's been raised, we oft-times find ourselves in a position of hewing too tightly and too closely to the precise wording in Sir Erskine May. I think the House would certainly find its way clear to have an accommodation at this moment and permit the member for Omineca to embark upon an expanded explanation of some matter that is under the minister's jurisdiction. We would raise no objection on this side, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair hears and understands exactly what you say, hon. member, but it is one of the basic rules of this House, I'm given to understand, that we do not talk of legislation in this way. The opportunity to speak to the legislation comes to the House at the time the legislation comes to the House. It's a basic rule and one that we must abide by.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, I ask this, and I ask your guidance: if members of this House can't speak in a minister's estimates about legislation under which that minister has authority, then when, other than when that particular minister or any other minister of this House intends to change legislation, can an ordinary member speak about it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, members have two opportunities, as I see it. One is during the throne speech and the other is during the budget speech. But certainly it's not to be done in committee.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, without straying out of the bounds set for us by Sir Erskine May, I will try to discuss briefly the administration of various sections of the Mining (Placer) Act as they are administered by my office and by myself. The only real comment I can make is that there is an accommodation that involves the operations of a number of ministries that try to be accommodated under our administration of the placer-mining regulations in this province. Those disciplines are represented by the federal government through Fisheries and Oceans, by the provincial government through the Ministry of Environment, and by our own Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. We endeavour to bring forward the concerns of all of the disciplines of all of those groups, as we tend to wish to use these resources in multiple ways. I understand the frustration that the member and some of the people within the placer-

[ Page 3735 ]

mining community have, but there is a very substantial community of people involved from the environmental side with very legitimate and worthwhile causes. So, while there is progress in this area in conjunction with these three different disciplines, it does not meet with everyone's satisfaction.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair,

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

14 Mr. Reynolds asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

1. On July 27, did any members of the Public Service in the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services leave their positions to attend a rally at the Parliament Buildings, and if so, how many?

2. In reference to No. 1, how many of these public servants will be paid for: (a) the whole day and (b) for part of the day?

3. Will any money be saved by Government as a result of No. 2, and if so, how much?

The Hon. J.R. Chabot replied as follows:

" 1. We have no record of the number of employees who actually attended the rally, only the number that left their work without authorization. Four hundred and fifty-nine employees left their work without authorization on July 27, 1983.

"2. Four hundred and fifty-nine employees will be paid for only part of that day.

"3. Approximately $7,500 will be saved by the Government."

24 Mr. Reynolds asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

1. On August 10, did any members of the Public Service in the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services leave their positions to attend a rally at Empire Stadium, and if so, how many?

2. In reference to No. 1, how many of these public servants will be paid for: (a) the whole day and (b) for part of the day?

3. Will any money be saved by Government as a result of No. 2, and if so, how much?

The Hon. J, R. Chabot replied as follows:

" 1. We have no record of the number of employees who actually attended the rally, only the number that were absent from their work without authorization. Thirty-two employees were absent from work without authorization on August 10, 1983. (Picket lines were established at their location.)

"2. Thirty-two employees will not be paid for the whole day.

"3. Approximately $2,300 will be saved by the Government."