[ Page 5405 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 5405

UVic engineering faculty. Mr. Nicolson –– 5405

Public opinion polls. Mr. Hanson –– 5406

South African products in government liquor stores. Mr. Barnes –– 5406

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 5406

Tabling Documents –– 5406

Private Members' Statements

ALRT extension. Mr. Davis –– 5406

Mr. Reid

Mr. Williams

Mr. Parks

Forest Act (section 88). Mr. Howard –– 5408

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Capital punishment. Mrs. Dailly –– 5410

Hon. Mr. Smith

Tourism and the environment. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5411

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Budget debate

Ms. Brown –– 5413

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5416

Mr. Barnes –– 5419

FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our galleries and precincts today we have 80 students visiting us from Cloverdale Junior Secondary School. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: Yesterday the Minister of International Trade and Investment indicated part of the reason why northeast coal is in trouble by announcing that 3 percent of $10 was 3 cents. I think he was referring to the $8.50 decrease, which is close to $10, in terms of the price the Japanese will be paying for coal from Quintette. Can he confirm that the number should have been 30 cents, if that indeed is 3 percent of $10?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the erroneous statements made yesterday by the member who asked the question, I have asked my old department, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, to look into this situation and to give me a report on the effect on the royalties, and I'll be making a statement in the fullness of time.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a profound question, and I'm sure all of the department should be brought to bear on the question of what 3 percent of $10 is.

Can the minister advise us if meetings are currently taking place with Quintette, between representatives of the government and the company, to deal with their serious financial problems at this time?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that's kind of a dumb question coming from that member, because the government does not.... I don't know how many times we have to tell that member that it's the company who put the money into the mine, and any negotiations would be, I presume, between the company and its bankers. The government is not involved in the financing of the Quintette mine. I just think it's an erroneous question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy and Mines (Hon. Mr. Rogers) confirm that the payment arrangement with Hydro in respect to the mines will be impacted by this decision of the Japanese, since the payments for the powerline into the mine depended on increased prices for coal, not decreased prices?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll take that question as notice and get an answer, because I haven't looked at the numbers on it. I'll get back to you next week.

UVIC ENGINEERING FACULTY

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. On the basis of certain commitments made by the Premier and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the University of Victoria advertised and filled the position of dean and chairman of a four-department faculty of engineering, having 850 undergraduate students, 60 academic staff and a separate 200,000 square-foot engineering building. Will the Premier advise why the government has reneged on that commitment, which he gave in November 1982?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government hasn't reneged, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a new question to the Premier. When the Premier made that announcement on November 24, 1982, he stated that the new faculty will spur industrial growth in Victoria, especially in high technology. He said it was a vital preliminary step in attracting industries to southern Vancouver Island. Does the Premier now admit that he has put these economic prospects at risk?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker, because the commitment is still there and the engineering school will proceed. Hopefully they will proceed at a rate at which they can take advantage of the new industrial incentives that will attract business and industry to this province.

MR. NICOLSON: This is a new question to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Is the minister aware that the government's actions which have led to the resignation of Dean Bruton have seriously compromised the program to the point that the faculty may not be accredited by the accreditation board of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I consider any statements of that sort to be the height of academic irresponsibility. The matter of accreditation of professional schools across Canada is something which is provided at the end of a program, taking into account the quality of examinations that are proffered to the graduating students and those students' degree of accomplishment from the instruction they have had during the program. That is something which I'm confident is well in hand at the University of Victoria, as it proceeds with its program. People who are attempting to undermine the program in mid-stream are doing an enormous disservice to themselves and their academic credibility, to the institutions and their credibility, and to the students who enter these programs trusting the academic staff that are their teachers. I condemn it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: It's the minister who has failed to keep written commitments. But I want to ask the minister: is he aware that this statement has come, not from the University of Victoria, but from...? This opinion has been given by people in the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and spokesmen for that association.

[10:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: If it has come from such people, I would make the same statements about those people because....

Interjection.

[ Page 5406 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it's not a question of being wrong; it's a question of being responsible. People, whether they're part of the council or part of the faculty, deserve to be condemned for such statements.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier regarding public opinion polling. On March 13 the Premier told the House that Decima Research had performed polling services for the government. Will the Premier advise why payment for these services is not listed in volume 2 of the Public Accounts of the province, which lists details of payments made from government revenues?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that any polling that they've done would go through public accounts, and it may be in volume 3.

MR. HANSON: The fact that payments to Decima Research for polling services are not recorded in Public Accounts suggests that these accounts may have been submitted through a third party. Will the Premier advise whether any such arrangement exists regarding Decima Research and who the third party might be?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: Will the Premier advise whether any of the public opinion polls performed by Decima and their operating subsidiary, Summerhill Research Centre, contain questions asking which political parties respondents would vote for, or have voted for in the past, and on what basis?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I can't tell you that. I only know that what research is done in government is coordinated through government information services. The questions are developed by the various ministries. I would hope that the member wouldn't confuse it with political polls that are done by parties and others, including your own — although I noticed in the last federal election that the NDP fired their pollster because they didn't like what he was telling them.

MR. HANSON: Will the Premier advise the House what company is paid for the political polling that is done for the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if our party carries out research, that's the business of the party. I have no intention of dealing with political matters within this assembly for the benefit of the member for Victoria, whose preoccupation is a partisan one rather than the public interest.

SOUTH AFRICAN PRODUCTS
IN GOVERNMENT LIQUOR STORES

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer Affairs. The world has been shocked by the death of a number of South African citizens at the hands of a government which maintains the racist policy of apartheid. Yesterday, as you know, some 17 or so individuals were shot by troops of the South African regime on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre. Has the minister now decided to remove South African products from liquor stores in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker. The present policy will continue.

MR. BARNES: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister suggesting that the government's position is the same as it was when the former Attorney-General, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom)...? Is it just a simple case of selective ethics? Have morals no role to play in the sale of products coming from a government that oppresses its citizens?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. There is a certain latitude allowed to a member at question period, but you must place the question.

MR. BARNES: My question is this: has the minister surveyed public opinion with respect to this problem? Is he aware that at the University of Victoria they are withdrawing funds from all activities involved with South Africa, and that Seattle, for instance, has withdrawn its funds, that Massachusetts, Connecticut and 20 other states...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly a question was placed prior to a debate taking place, and we must give the minister an opportunity to respond.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member can appreciate that the consumer makes the decision as to whether they feel strongly enough not to purchase the product because of the problems in that country. What you're asking for is the heavy hand of government to come along and say this must not happen. If we follow that approach, then I guess we should not sell grain to China, to Russia. Is that what you're saying? We shouldn't buy Lada cars? We shouldn't trade in the world marketplace? Short-sighted, Mr. Member. The issue is one with the individual and their conscience.

Introduction of Bills

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education for July 1, 1983 to June 30, 1984, and accompanying statistical tables.

Private Members' Statements

LRT EXTENSION

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the topic I wish to address this morning is the prospective extension of light rail rapid transit into Surrey and Coquitlam. Approximately a year ago next May, the government announced that light rail rapid transit

[ Page 5407 ]

would be extended from New Westminster across the Fraser River into Surrey. Thereafter there was considerable activity. Exact location of the bridge was determined and design of the bridge proceeded. Location of the line from the 8th Street station in New Westminster through to the bridge was determined in a series of negotiations with the New Westminster city council, and the first station on the south side of the river, Scott Road, was finally located.

In recent months not much has been heard about the extension, and while the Speech from the Throne and the budget contained references to light rail rapid transit, they didn't indicate that further construction would proceed in the near future. Basically, my first questions are: is the project on schedule and will it be completed to Surrey in 1987-88? Alternatively, is the government reviewing the announcement of approximately a year ago?

The cost initially was said to be in the order of $200 million from downtown New Westminster as far as Surrey Place. Subsequent studies have shown that due to the uncertain subsurface conditions in the first reaches in Surrey, and because of the need to go off the King George Highway in the higher reaches of Surrey, the price might be as high as $270 million.

I'm one who believes — I really believe — that a crossing over the Fraser is essential. It's essential to the economics of the whole line. Light rail rapid transit really doesn't do anything unique unless it crosses the Fraser. Crossing into Surrey can add as much as a third to the ridership. The investment to simply cross the Fraser, without going all the way to Surrey Place, could be less than 20 percent of the $800 million capital cost of the first phase. A 20 percent increase in investment can yield at least a third increase in ridership — that's good economics. Therefore I think the government, or at least B.C. Transit, must recommend a continuation of the crossing of the Fraser phase at least as far as Scott Road.

I would question whether an investment of a further $100 million to $120 million to go up to Surrey Place would be preferable to an investment of the order of $100 million to extend the line from New Westminster, essentially in the area of the north end of Pattullo Bridge, to Brunette in Coquitlam. In other words, those incremental dollars might be better spent in reaching into Coquitlam — and incidentally serving the Lougheed Mall area as well — rather than going to Surrey Place immediately. The incremental ridership going up to Surrey Place is not significant — it certainly wouldn't be large — whereas the increased ridership, if a Y were build extending to Brunette, might be of the order of 15, even 20, percent and much more than the perhaps 10 percent increase in investment involved.

So hopefully the government and B.C. Transit are looking very seriously not only at building the bridge across the Fraser and getting on with the crossing into Surrey immediately, but also at the best economics of the alternatives of continuing on up to Surrey Place, as opposed to building the Y to Brunette.

I hope that in future the Ministry of Transportation and Highways will be much more involved in these decisions. We need really an overall transportation policy. We need a coordination of decision-making in the area of urban public transportation with the broader economics of longer-distance transportation which falls under Transportation and Highways.

Construction of the Annacis Highway bridge is being accelerated. I believe that both that bridge and the rapid transit bridge across the Fraser are needed, but my understanding is that those decisions essentially were made in separate compartments. There should have been a coordinated approach to the overall requirements of those who live south of the Fraser River and need access to Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster, and of the Coquitlam area. Coquitlam and Surrey are the two fastest growing areas in the lower mainland. They should be better served with public transportation, and I personally believe that light rail rapid transit reaching towards both of them would be the best policy.

[10:30]

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in making a member's statement in response to the question raised by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis), I wanted to comment in relation to the requirement for the ALRT line going right into the Surrey Place location. The first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) and I just last month had meetings in Surrey with the B.C. Transit people in relation to the alignment. The alignments were agreed to by two particular meetings on two separate evenings, and attracted more than 500 people to both of the hearings, with not a negative response from anybody in the audience as to the proposed alignments and the highly recommended alignment.

But the member points out that there is a 30 percent increase in ridership as a result of the crossing of the Fraser River. The most interesting thing is that it also services Langley by virtue of the Fraser Highway, at Surrey Place. It also serves White Rock.

The numbers in relation to the budget are very interesting. The first phase was estimated by the engineers to cost somewhere around $870 million, and it's now coming out around $800 million, which shows that the timing is right to get on with the construction, because they're coming in about 20 percent under estimates. Since the engineers' estimates on the first phase across to Surrey are accurate on the first estimates, I would suggest we would probably be under $200 million for that extension, rather than the $200 million which has been just recently estimated.

So, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Surrey and the second member for Surrey would encourage the extension to Surrey Place of the ALRT as soon as possible, giving second recognition to the Coquitlam extension.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's extraordinary. Imagine $270 million to extend this costly system just across the river into north Surrey....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: To Surrey Place. Well, it's still in north Surrey. Surrey Place is at the King George Highway — come on!

...versus using the British Columbia Hydro railway that's already there. Because they've got this technology, they're locked into high-cost solutions at every stage of the game in terms of serving the suburbs. Already we have the B.C. Hydro railway going through Kerrisdale to Richmond. We could be using existing technology in serving Richmond; we could be using existing technology by using the Central Park right-of-way, which is the B.C. Hydro railway; we could be using the B.C. Hydro railway that goes through north Surrey, which goes through Newton and which goes out into

[ Page 5408 ]

the Fraser Valley; we could be using the CPR, which goes out to Mission and serves the other part of the Fraser Valley — at minuscule cost compared to the ALRT system that you've embarked on. It's just bad fiscal management, gambling with technology that has locked this government into countless high-cost solutions.

There are examples down the coast, in San Diego and in Portland, that show us that if we had used existing technology we could have done this at a fraction of the cost and not only served north Surrey but also Mission, Langley and the Fraser Valley for the same money as well. That's the problem, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PARKS: I am very pleased to have my colleague raise this subject in the House this morning. Obviously the point that this member makes can only be very briefly reiterated by me in the limited time. The economics of the whole line would be tremendously enhanced by the Coquitlam extension. It's coincidental that in this morning's Times-Colonist there's a reference from a West German transportation consultant noting the lack of park-and-rides throughout the Vancouver-New Westminster leg. It so happens that Coquitlam has ideal park-and-ride facilities to, in effect, pull in the whole catchment basin of the north side of the river, from Maple Ridge and Mission right into the Coquitlams. It would be a tremendous enhancement to the ALRT line. So I applaud the comments of my colleague, and I encourage the government to give speedy consideration and approval to that extension.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) talks about existing technology or proven technology. Let me draw a picture: he's really talking about the technology that existed around the turn of the century. He wants to go back to the old interurban system, a revival of which would have cost the taxpayer roughly half as much as the new system that's being built, so obviously there would have been a saving in capital costs. Of course it had operators, so there wouldn't have been a saving in operating costs.

Let me describe it. It was a single-line system. It was not double-tracked. Secondly, it crossed streets at grade level, so gates had to come down wherever it crossed streets.

You have the problem today with so-called modem technology in Calgary, where the new rapid transit system runs along the street with buses and automobiles crossing at right angles and with red lights stopping it every second block. That's not rapid transit.

Whereas we can now guarantee 30 minutes from Surrey Place to the waterfront in Vancouver, there is no way with today's traffic that the so-called conventional, proven, old-style technology would deliver people within an hour. People will not ride the old-type system. They deserted it wholesale in the forties and fifties for the automobile, and you have to improve on the automobile. Hence ALRT in its present mode.

FOREST ACT (SECTION 88)

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, when a group has the opportunity to spend somebody else's money, there needs to be adequate proper checks and balances against the potential for abuse. That's precisely what....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, if you want to mention school boards, I can deal with that because the two things are running counter here in this government.

That's what section 88 does. It permits licensees under the act to spend taxpayers' money for certain purposes like road-building and silviculture and the like and then to get a credit for that money that has been spent. They are basically operating in a trust capacity insofar as the people of B.C. are concerned. They have that obligation and requirement under section 88 — at least in a philosophic sense, even though it's not stated there precisely — to act in a trusting way to deal with the people's money. There needs to be responsibility, there needs to be accounting and there need to be assurances given to the general public — who are basically putting up the money — that the thing is done properly and that the funds are spent properly.

There are two aspects of section 88 involved in a check-and-balance factor. One is prior approval of the work to be done or the project to be undertaken. The other is the subsequent checking to see that the work performed was in fact justified by virtue of the cost claimed for doing that particular work.

In former debates in this House, I had the opportunity during the estimates, I believe it was, of the Ministry of Forests — to raise the question that there were inadequacies in the check-and-balance system, and that there were abuses that had taken place. The minister, in his reply, denied that that was the case and countered by saying that if I had any specifies with respect to that, I should draw them to his attention.

But I submit to you that the checks and the balances have not been in place, and that you will find and that there have been findings that a duplication of costs could be involved — in other words, the same costs could be identified twice or paid twice for the same amount of work — and that the cost used of a project to a licensee might not be reliable. That has existed and still exists.

Insofar as the requirement for prior approval of projects, it's been discovered that some — not all, some.... Unfortunately I cannot identify them, because I don't know who they are; and I appreciate that by doing this you tend to label everybody in the same category, but this is not my labelling, it is somebody else's. It has been discovered that some regional managers of forests did not review or approve projects prior to the licensee's embarking upon those projects, and that many projects have never been inspected after the work was done.

MR. WILLIAMS: Shame! Cost plus.

MR. HOWARD: Now that's exactly what that is, cost plus whatever you can nail on to the top of it. I'm not blaming the licensees for this. They're operating in this type of System. The problem is that the law is inadequate. The problem is that section 88 permits licensees to spend taxpayers' money — in fact, not only permits them to do it but demands that they do it — and doesn't institute an adequate system of accounting and responsibilities. On the demand side of accounting, it isn't there. The law is inadequate. The administration of the law of section 88 is inadequate. It has failed to protect the public interest.

[ Page 5409 ]

Perhaps because of that failure, Mr. Speaker, to protect the public interest, we have the situation, identified and announced by officials in the ministry, of something in the neighbourhood of $30 million to $40 million being owed by the people of B.C. to licensees under the Forest Act because of activities under section 88. It seems to me that what is required is a very thorough examination of the question of checks, balances and accountability, and a requirement that the ministry carry out its obligations to serve the public interest — that it not abandon the public interest, simply to serve the private sector. All these difficulties flow from that philosophical blindness on the part of this government, which says: "The private sector can do no wrong. All we have to do is provide them with the opportunity to flourish, and they can do no wrong." That type of attitude says, "The public interest be damned, " and that's not good enough in this day and age.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the subject discussed by the member for Skeena is the same subject he has been having correspondence about with the auditor-general. It seems strange to me that the innuendo he brings forward has in fact been refuted by the auditor-general herself. I don't approach life or my job with the assumption that everyone is a thief. That member may; I don't.

We do have balances in place. I'll read part of the response from the auditor-general's letter to that member. Referring to section 88, she said: "These represent eligible claims against future billings by the province in respect of stumpage fees. Each year these credits are subject to my office's audit procedures. Credits recorded in the accounts of the province are tested to ensure that they were properly approved and calculated, and represent valid expenditures under section 88 of the act."

In his letter to the auditor-general that member apparently took several statements from her report to the Legislature and from further, more detailed reports that the auditor-general provides to the ministry. He raised several points she had mentioned in her report. One is that inspections are not always carried out. I must remind members that this is the 1981 auditor-general's report. She says: "Inspections are not always carried out. Branches have not yet developed standards for section 88 projects. Limited monitoring of compliance policy by the evaluation branch and projects started and completed before an addendum was signed...." These are all, I think, very valid questions raised by the auditor-general in 1981, which was very early in the use of section 88.

1 would point out to the members, Mr. Speaker, that section 88 is not the payment of costs incurred for approved work. The payment is for the estimate of a reasonable cost for the incurred work. Certainly it's not a cost-plus situation. We do not pay.... If the actual cost to the licensee is higher, it is not paid at all. At times, if a licensee is super-efficient, he saves both himself and the government money.

[10:45]

In response to those four questions and points raised.... Regarding inspections not carried out, since that time we have developed very detailed manuals — policy manuals and operations manuals — for the ministry. Time permitting, I'll read from some of these manuals, and I would be very happy if the member.... I don't know if he has a set of the policy manuals from the ministry or not; if he doesn't, I can certainly provide him and his caucus with them. They are changing from day to day. I think, perhaps, you have them. If you don't, Mr. Member, please signify, and I will make sure that you do get such policy manuals.

Part of the section 88 manual says: "Inspections must be completed within 60 days of receipt of the cost claim, except where weather or some other major factor precludes it." The valuation branch conducts an annual review to ensure compliance with established policies. During the past three years products have been selected at random to ensure all necessary documentation, including a final inspection report, is available in the project file. Of the projects reviewed, 95.7 percent of the audited dollar value was inspected, and inspection reports were on file. It is not possible to inspect every foot of every road that is built under section 88, but we do have a very detailed inspection process and a detailed auditing process. We do have a system of penalties where abuses take place.

The member is perhaps suggesting, for example, that every person who does business in Canada should have a tax auditor inspecting and supervising every transaction that takes place, so that we can be sure that when they fill out their income tax returns they are not trying to cheat the government. We have a little more faith in the public of Canada than that.

Other comments raised in the report. For example, it said that branches had not yet developed standards for section 88 projects. The procedures manual spells out in detail just what these procedures are. At the time of the auditor-general's report we were in the process of putting together this policy, and it is now fully in place.

He also stated that the ministry should set up systems to monitor district and regional compliance with established policies. I have before me, Mr. Speaker, very detailed procedures as to just exactly what must take place in such circumstances, as is the case with the other points.

We have responded in great detail to the auditor- general's report, and I feel confident that the public interest is properly looked after in compliance with section 88 of the Forest Act.

I do thank the member for raising it. Although the auditor-general's report is old, we have complied with those recommendations made.

MR. HOWARD: Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I get the changes to the policy manual before the minister does. It's not a question of whether I don't have them or haven't looked at them.

One of the interesting things is that on an earlier occasion when I raised this matter, he, in this Legislature, denied the existence of any such examination. Now he has been smoked out to in fact admit that yes, the inadequacies that I pointed out had in fact taken place. There is no guarantee, because none of this takes place in the eyes of the general public. It all takes place within the secrecy of government. There is no guarantee in the future that the public interest will be properly protected.

If, for argument's sake, the applications for rollovers of forest licences and the like into TFLs takes place, and if they're approved, that will mean that more than half of the forest land in British Columbia will be under the control of groups able to operate under section 88. With that increase in authority and control, you need a concomitant increase in the right to protect the public interest. It hasn't been done up until now. There have been abuses.

It's not a question of identifying anybody as a thief. That may come to the minister's mind from time to time. It does

[ Page 5410 ]

not come to mind. What comes to my mind is that they make laws in this place that unfortunately put people in a position of being in a conflict of interest. It's unfair to those individuals for the law to subject them to that. It would be much more appropriate, I think, if the minister would undertake to table in the House the documentation with respect to the inspections and the approvals under section 88. He's not interested in doing that, because that would be revealing to the general public something he doesn't want the general public to know.

It would be equally valuable if some mechanism could be found to indicate the element of administrative costs in all of this, what that is charged against and how many people are involved, just so we'll have an idea and an assurance that the people who are placed in a conflict of interest by this government are functioning properly.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Smith), has been making a number of statements recently expressing his position that we should have the return of capital punishment in Canada. He has even gone further than advocating the return of capital punishment. I understand that he wants to change the Criminal Code of Canada so that the provinces will also be involved in making a decision, if I understand correctly, on the return of capital punishment. The very fact that the Attorney-General has gone this far has brought this whole serious problem into the provincial arena. That is why I am going to speak very briefly on this matter.

I am speaking personally on this matter because I have been a long-time opponent of capital punishment. I remain unalterably opposed to the reinstatement of it. In my brief time I want to give a few reasons.

Contrary to popular beliefs, to be against capital punishment is not a bleeding-heart liberal approach to dealing with murders. In fact it's just the opposite. Most opponents of capital punishment base their opposition on reason and rationality.

Here are some of my reasons, and certainly the reasons of many other people in our country. There is no convincing volume of evidence that those countries which retain the death penalty are any freer of capital crimes than those which have not had the death penalty. The United States has recently reinstated the death penalty. I believe they have put to death over 40 people in the United States. I don't have the accurate figures, but I know it's at least that. At the present time there are 4,000 potential candidates on death row awaiting the blood bath in the United States. Yet the interesting thing to note, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no sign in the United States of the abatement of violent crimes. As a matter of fact, compared to other countries, in Europe particularly, where they do not have capital punishment, the rate of violent crimes in the United States is one of the highest.

Deterrent: yes, many people say it's a deterrent. Yes, the fear of death will deter normal persons. But are the people who commit murder normal? Certainly you cannot consider to be mentally healthy or normal a person who has become so mentally sick that he will take another life or ravage a child.

Mr. Speaker, society has no right to take from a person something which cannot be restored. If we hang a person and then find a mistake has been made, nothing can be done to make amends.

An interesting point here is that when you have capital punishment, you find that many juries are reluctant to find the person before them guilty of murder in the first degree, which could impose the penalty of death. That's another rational point which should be considered.

The death penalty is a negative attempt to promote the safety of society. We need better law enforcement. There are too many unsolved crimes in this country. Recently in Esquimalt a judge really was concerned about the long time and the poor handling of one case which came before him. One of the best deterrents is for the criminal to know that he will be found out, and he will be incarcerated. For any psychotics, I would certainly say an indeterminate sentence.

But basically — and I'd like to conclude with this, Mr. Speaker — society has major responsibilities in this area. We must tackle the problems that breed criminals. One of the most famous examples of that is the case of President John Kennedy, who was assassinated by Oswald. It was discovered in analyzing the man who assassinated John Kennedy that he was a very disturbed child; his teachers and other people had informed whoever was involved, the human service people in his area, that here was a very sick child who needed psychiatric attention, which was never given to him.

So my point is, let's not take the negative way; let's not take the easy way of saying let's go back to capital punishment. Let us get together, work together so that we can produce a society which will not brutalize itself by restoring once more what they consider to be a deterrent and which will not be a deterrent.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to congratulate the member for Burnaby North on her views, which she expressed very sincerely and straightforwardly. This subject is one, I think, in which you really begin on the basis of philosophy and conscience, not on the basis of political stripe. There are two widely differing views in this country on the subject.

Where I come from on this subject is that we in Canada do have a need to deal with the issue of violent crime. I agree with the member on this. There is no doubt in my mind that capital punishment is not a panacea or the answer to all the problems of violent crime. Violent crime has to be assaulted on many fronts.

We probably need a national commission on violent crime, the way the president had in the United States. The Canadian Minister of Justice is looking at a proposal to have such a commission. We need to have, right across this country, total cooperation and integration of all our crime-fighting facilities, to pool our information and do a better job of deterring and combatting violent and organized crime.

But I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the debate on capital punishment we often lose sight of one forgotten person in the whole justice system, a person who has really been quite ignored historically. None of us knows that more than those of us who have practised criminal law, like the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), myself and some others. That person is the victim. The victim is really the forgotten person in the sausage machine. If a criminal charge is laid, the victim has to come forward and be interrogated, interviewed, given attendances in court, new attendances, cases are adjourned, and the victim is often told very little and is forced to come in and then be cross-examined in a courtroom several times before a person is brought to justice. Then if that person is brought to justice, and the sentence is not seen

[ Page 5411 ]

to be appropriate or not seen to be a sentence that deters others, then the victim wonders what it was all for. It all seems in vain.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker, when I had the honour to debate this matter at a conference of the Canadian bar last month in very distinguished company, with Edward Greenspan and with distinguished civil libertarians speaking, like Maurice Schumiacher and Prof. Schmeiser from Saskatoon, the most moving performance in the whole debate was a lady who came forward, Mrs. McCord, who was the wife of a county court judge in Ontario whose boy had been murdered. She described her whole experience through the court system. I can tell you that we lose sight of the victim when we debate these matters. Can there be any way to deter a person who has already committed the crime of premeditated murder, and that person is incarcerated in an institution, and their mind is set on only one thing, and that is to escape? What is to deter that person from committing the crime of murder again in the course of his escape? There is absolutely nothing except a second, third or fourth life sentence. What I say is: you have to have the death penalty. Society has to have the death penalty as the only possible deterrent for people in that category.

What is to deter also the professional contract killer, the person who for $25,000, $50,000 or a sum of money will kill another person for gain, and has already done so? What is to deter that person, besides the death penalty? You have to have the death penalty for a very few categories of crimes and criminals, and you use that penalty very sparingly. You have all the safeguards of the justice system there, including the power of commutation. The main reason that lawyers shy away as a group from endorsing the death penalty is that they believe there is that chance of making a mistake, and there is that frailty in the system.

We all know of the Christie case in Britain. There is one documented case in Canada, in our short history, back in the last century where it appears that an innocent man was executed. So they shy away from it because they believe that a mistake can be made. Any justice system is human, and you can make a mistake. But if you have a commutation system, you can safeguard, and the justice system can take care of that.

I want to welcome the debate that we had here, and thank the member for bringing this important issue forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. At this time I must go back to the proponent for concluding remarks.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the fact that the Attorney-General said that he too is concerned with the whole aspect of crime in Canada and suggested that perhaps there's going to be a major commission or study. We certainly are pleased to hear that. I must say, though, that the usual arguments did come up for reinstatement that I've heard so many times. The minister suggested the fact that, well, maybe we should have capital punishment for certain people. I think the answer to that is: you can't be just a little bit pregnant, Mr. Attorney-General. You can't be just a little bit for capital punishment.

My point is that it's a basic principle here. The taking of a life, to my mind, is something that denigrates the state and the country. In my opinion, it's often felt that the countries that do away with capital punishment are showing that they have a conscience. But I also do not feel that the minister has given any particularly reasonable arguments, to my mind, to prove to me and many others that it really is a deterrent. We all want to stop murders; there's no question about that. Where we disagree is how.

I'd simply like to conclude by saying that to teach society it is wrong to kill, you yourself do not kill.

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to take the opportunity to make a statement on tourism and the necessity for the protection of environmental quality. I'm pleased to see that both the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and the new Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) are here. I look forward to their input in the matter.

I want to begin by making a simple quotation. That quote reads: "The natural heritage of British Columbia, its mountains and coastal scenery, are the province's most obvious and dramatic attraction." That quotation is extracted from a recent Canada-British Columbia agreement on the travel industry. I think that the statement recognizes that the ability to attract the tourist dollar is inextricably linked to our environmental heritage. The fact is that tourism in British Columbia is synonymous with both recreation and outdoor leisure activities.

In the past British Columbia has marketed its tourism industry using, if I may say, the macho image — the tough, wild, great outdoors; "Super, Natural British Columbia." Not to fault that, but the image does emphasize our environmental strengths: our forests, our mountains, our clean lakes and our streams. The fact is that the tourism action plan by the Ministry of Tourism fails to recognize or advance a single thought about the preservation of this resource, on which the industry depends.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In British Columbia we have allowed a slow degradation of our prime attractions, if you witness the urban sprawl and careless resource utilization. Often we find conflicts in resource use. Witness, for example, the precipitous decline of our salmon stocks and our steelhead fisheries, the degradation of wildlife due to the loss of winter range, the pollution of our coastal waters, the eutrophication of our inland lakes through excessive nutrient loading, and of course the problem of acid rain.

Not to place the blame on any specific ministry or any individual, of course; the blame is a part of all of us. It's due to government inaction at all levels that we're responsible for this slow degradation in environmental quality. As a result, we're now in danger of losing our environmental heritage, and possibly losing our tourist dollar, which is linked to that. Tourism, simply put, depends upon a healthy environment. If you need verification of that, ask the fishing guide in Campbell River, or ask the owner of a resort in the Okanagan. They understand the linkage between environment and the tourist dollar.

As an example, Mr. Speaker, the Okanagan basin represents or demonstrates the growing legacy of our carelessness. The lakes in the Okanagan have for years had excessive nutrient-loading due to agricultural runoff and the disposal of effluent into the bodies of water. Our lakes are dying, Mr. Speaker, and as a result our tourism is in danger of dying also. Simply put, people won't swim in lakes that are choked with

[ Page 5412 ]

weeds or in which sewage is placed. The milfoil weed, of course, is encouraged by the groundwater pollution, the agricultural runoff and the disposal of sewage. To cite a specific example, Mr. Speaker, the city of Vernon used to be a leader in how they handled their effluent disposal, but they've run out of room for the spray application of effluent. As a result, sewage now goes into Okanagan Lake. The city has just begun a program of dumping sewage — as a matter of fact, on Tuesday. They have appealed a number of times to the government to resolve this crisis, because what is needed is not new technology but new dollars. Money is the solution to that problem. As I mentioned, on Tuesday it's had to dump more sewage into the lake, and there is particular environmental and health concern regarding that. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the government can no longer afford to ignore such problems any longer.

The other week I asked the Minister of Tourism to join me in an appeal to the former Minister of Environment to upgrade the funding levels for our milfoil harvesting program. The minister refused. I really believe he took my comments too lightly, and the problem shouldn't be taken lightly. It's far too serious for that.

If I may, I will read a couple of quotations of recent articles in local papers. To go back to the provincial perspective, one deals with the Inside Passage up the west coast. It's an article on the economic benefits of cruise shipping along the Inside Passage, and it demonstrates the importance of tourism in British Columbia. It says:

"...the Ministry of Forests is at this moment planning extensive logging operations in the Grenville Channel. The channel is one of the narrowest and most spectacular of the Inside Passage routes. Tourists take the cruises to experience the visual delight of the rugged coastal landscape. The cruise industry depends on the quality of that landscape, not merely on the boat-deck offerings of French wines and beauty parlors.

"It is time for the government to make some basic choices about tourism. If we insist on trying to sell 'Super, Natural British Columbia,' then let's deliver a credible product."

I turn now to a recent article in the Sun. This is from a former tourist from the Seattle area.

"I'm sorry, but I won't be accepting the invitation from B.C. Tourism Minister Claude Richmond to come up and visit 'Super, Natural' British Columbia. Despite the minister's alluring invitation, oft repeated in so many advertisements in U.S. publications, I and so many others do not wish to see the devastated slopes of Mount Arrowsmith, the desolate hillsides of Barkley Sound, the clearcuts running to the shores of lakes we once loved in the Cariboo...."

Mr. Speaker, I see my red light is on. In summary, it says:

"The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have uncontrolled, unregulated development and the benefits of tourism at the same time."

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In response to the member's statement, I will try to answer his comments without treading on the areas of other ministers of government, but I feel some of them are a little far-out and a little off-base.

Let me start with his last comment first. The letter to the Sun written by a fellow from the States — which I answered, by the way — is full of inaccuracies and generalizations and overstatement. It's very poetically written, as I said, and some of it rolls off the tongue very well, but it's very inaccurate.

We in Tourism and in this government recognize very well the environmental heritage that we have. I take umbrage at the statement that we are in danger of losing our environmental heritage. It is simply not true. We have made dramatic improvements in the quality of the environment in this province over the last few years — under this government, I might add. Some of the most stringent laws and regulations regarding the environment to be found anywhere are found in British Columbia. We are continuing to upgrade the quality and to test the quality of our environment, and I will ask the Minister of Environment to remark on that.

The notion that all our ads are macho ones appealing to the Marlboro-type man is absolute nonsense. If you've been watching our advertising campaign over the last couple of years, you will have seen ads advertising all aspects of tourism in this province, from city life to passive areas to the outdoors — the hiker, the mountain climber. In his opening statement, to have singled out one area of the province and said it is the most valuable item we have in tourism is not true. I don't think the people in the interior would take kindly to that statement, or those who live in the Rocky Mountains or the Kootenays or wherever. We try very diligently not to single out any one area of the province and promote it over any other area.

The resource utilization that he commented about I think is a well-thought-out and well-planned item on our agenda but is one better left to other ministers to talk about, specifically the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers). We all realize that there have been problems in the salmon fishery in this province and I think they are well addressed by the recent treaty signed between our two countries. There's no doubt that there is a problem, and it probably should have been addressed many years ago. They've been trying for 15 years or more to sign that treaty. Thankfully they've finally signed it and we can get on with the job of enhancing and bringing back our salmon stocks, and I'm sure that we will.

There is an overview of the Ministry of Environment that I like, and that I'll read quickly into the record:

"The generalized goal of the Ministry of Environment..."

I'd like to emphasize that the Ministry of Tourism shares this goal.

"...is to maintain a quality environment consistent with the needs and aspirations of the people of British Columbia. Conservation of B.C.'s natural environment is fundamental to the social and economic well-being of the province. Unpolluted air, water and lands, together with the plants and animals they support, represent our natural heritage. These natural resources not only form the basis for much of the province's employment and recreational (tourist) opportunities, but are a vital and irreplaceable asset to be preserved and protected."

I align myself fully, as does this government, with this objective of the Ministry of Environment.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Environment to make a few comments regarding some of the programs that his ministry has in place.

[ Page 5413 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He'll have to be very brief,

HON. MR. PELTON: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I could take quite a long time, because the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) brought forward quite a number of individual items that should be addressed in that same way. Suffice it to say that we do have in the ministry an ongoing program of evaluating and checking various elements of the environment that are important to us — for example, the element of water, which is so important to every one of us, The monitoring of water quality has been going on in this province for over 15 years. During the past few years we have noticed some dramatic improvements in the quality of water in areas where previously there were some problems.

I could take some time to give you a lot of statistics on that but the red light is on. I would not like to encroach upon the little bit of time you have left, hon. member, so I'll sit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the proponent can reply.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my address, I must say that I have found the Minister of Environment to be most approachable. He's agreed to come up with me and look at the problems in the Vernon area, and I commend him for that.

I find the Minister of Tourism's statement rather interesting, because he seems to be at odds with the very statements and recommendations made in manuals submitted from his ministry. I question that whole focus.

I would like to make some specific recommendations, and I ask leave to table these recommendations at the conclusion.

First, I would like to recommend that the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Environment formulate a joint statement of policy on tourism and environment. Secondly, that this plan attempt to identify and preserve critical resources important to the tourism industry. Thirdly, that this government consider legislation similar to the English countryside act of 1968, which places the onus of environmental preservation on every agency of government. Fourthly, that this government strengthen present legislation to monitor development and minimize environmental land use conflicts. Fifthly, that this government extend the powers of the present Environment and Land Use Act in order to increase our ability to monitor the overall environmental picture.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would say it's time again to put our money where our mouth is. If we do have a commitment to tourism — and I believe the minister does — and also a commitment to job creation and long-term economic stability, those programs must be predicated on a sound and rational commitment to environmental preservation in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MS. BROWN: In rising to speak against the budget and to indicate my lack of support for it, I want to start out by associating myself with the comments made by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) earlier this morning, and to express my outrage and anger that this government continues to emotionally, morally and economically support the apartheid government of South Africa, which continues to murder black people unchecked.

In any event, I think that this budget gives us an opportunity to pose the question of what kind of care the children of British Columbia are getting when they fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources. There are only two comments in the budget that have anything to do with that ministry. One is the allusion to the government's indication of increasing the budget for income assistance without actually increasing the rates themselves. This is a clear indication that the government is budgeting for increased unemployment. By putting in a 2 percent increase in GAIN benefits and holding GAIN rates at the 1982 level, the government is clearly saying that as a result of its policies and this budget there are going to be more people needing income assistance in the future.

The only other mention of the ministry has to do with the maintenance program which the government is conducting as a pilot project in Richmond and which is going to be extended to the Vancouver area. When we take a look at the estimate book itself, we find that in fact the government is cutting $2 million from the budget of the department as it affects services to children and families.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you realize that a large number of children fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources. By law the ministry has been mandated to intervene whenever a child in this province is perceived to be in need of care and protection. Through the process of apprehension, the ministry can move in and remove a child from any family relationship or other relationship on the basis that that child is in clear and imminent danger, either physically, emotionally or in some other respect. As a result of that, the Ministry of Human Resources then becomes the parent in law of that child. I think that it's time we started looking at just what kind of parent the government and the ministry has been.

I want to begin by giving you a couple of statistics. Incidentally, the parenting only goes on until the child is age 19. When 60 percent of the children who are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources reach the age of 19, they go onto welfare. They don't go out and find a job; they don't go into a trade; they don't go into a profession; they go right onto income assistance. Sixty percent — a clear indictment of the Ministry of Human Resources as a parent.

Another statistic: 10 to 12 percent of the teenage prostitutes in this province are under the age of 15. Those prostitutes — most of them — are wards of the Ministry of Human Resources. Increasingly we are being told that younger and younger children, many of them wards of the Ministry of Human Resources, are turning to prostitution as a way of life.

We have heard about the resurgence of gangs in the Chinatown area and in Surrey and Langley in the Vancouver area, and in speaking with social workers we are told that most of those kids are wards of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Many of the children that the ministry is supposed to be taking care of are ending up on the streets. Many of them are turning to prostitution. When they reach the age of maturity and become adults, 60 percent of them go straight from being wards of the ministry onto income assistance. Yet what do we find in this budget? Is there an increase in funding to the Ministry of Human Resources to put into place the kinds of

[ Page 5414 ]

resources necessary to make that ministry a better parent than it is now? I don't think anyone will question the statistics that show that the ministry is a very bad parent. Some $2 million less will be spent this year than was spent last year in servicing the children and families of the province. I want to tell you that the ministry underspent that portion of its budget last year as well.

Mr. Speaker, there isn't any question that children have become the most tragic victims of this government's cutback program. The ministry has responded to the needs of families and children by eliminating family support workers, by destroying the streetworker program, by wiping out child abuse teams, removing social workers from the school system and wiping out other resources which families and children need. It is becoming increasingly clear that those actions now stand as an indictment of an uncaring government, willing to sacrifice children in the pursuit of ideology.

The elimination of the family and children's resources has meant that instead of social workers being involved in preventive services, they can now only deliver crisis services. They cannot move in, as a family support worker used to do, into a family which is giving some indication that it is in trouble. They can't try to help that family deal with its problem or try to help it stay together and keep those children in the home. Instead, it can only intervene now when a crisis occurs — when the problem has gone to the state where the family is shattered, the children are damaged and on the streets and in trouble with the law or whatever. That is the point at which the ministry can now intervene.

Complaints are coming in to all of the constituency offices around the province that when a complaint of child abuse is laid, it is taking a longer and longer time before a social worker can get out to investigate that complaint. In the meantime, the child remains in an abusing situation. Mr. Speaker, more and more children are running away from home. A total of 37.9 percent of the kids on the streets — and this is the ministry's own statistic — have been previously abused. They are running away from abusive experiences or an abusing home. Mr. Speaker, 58.6 percent of those kids, when they hit the streets — again, using the ministry's own statistics — are defined as being sexually exploited while they are on the streets. By any measurement, there is no question that as a parent the ministry and the government have failed.

Three years ago the ministry decided to terminate its streetworker program in Chinatown. At the time that program was terminated there were no gangs in Chinatown. Three years later, by trying to save money by terminating a streetworker program, we are finding that money is now being spent by the Attorney-General's ministry and by the city of Vancouver to beef up the police force in that area to deal with the gang problem.

We listen to Surrey, where people are storming the council talking about hiring more police to deal with the gang problem. Again, many of those children are wards of the Ministry of Human Resources. A streetworker program could have made that unnecessary. There isn't any question that people who have used the streetworker program.... If you listen to the police in the city of North Vancouver, they all speak about the preventive powers of having a worker on the street involved with the young children, directing them towards positive activity, and away from the negative kinds of things, such as vandalism, breaking and entering, harassing people and that kind of thing.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, I have here an article from the Vancouver Sun dated January 1985. They are talking about the fact that North Vancouver involved itself in a streetworker program last year because they were alarmed by the growing vandalism by the young people. They stated that as a direct result of that program, the RCMP have said that there has been a substantial drop in juvenile crime. The kids now have someone to listen to them and to give them a helping hand to organize activities — everything from going to the movies to hiking up the mountains. The streetworker job is one which has proven itself down through the ages. There used to be a very good streetworker program in Vancouver prior to the ministry's decision to wipe it out.

The chairperson of the Vancouver School Board, Dr. Weinstein, tells us that children in Vancouver are going to school hungry in the morning. The Vancouver School Board put in place a survey of six greater Vancouver schools. It turned out that something like 25 percent of kids in those schools were showing up hungry. Many of them were coming with no breakfast. In many of those schools the teachers were taking food to school to feed the children. In some instances, they were insisting that those kids who brought lunches should share their lunches with the other children. A number of the parents of these children are on income assistance; a number of them are in receipt of GAIN; a number of the children have parents who have problems with drugs and alcohol. Twenty-eight of those children have been identified as being abused, and a number of them have been apprehended by the ministry since September of last year. Mr. Speaker, that's 25 percent of those children. Yet what do we find when we look at the budget? We find that that area of the budget which is earmarked to meet the needs of children and families is losing $2 million. What kind of parent is the Ministry of Human Resources? What kind of parent is this government?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

When we look at day cares in Vancouver, we find there are only three that accept children at the rate paid by the Ministry of Human Resources — all others have to be supplemented. Yet the subsidy has not been increased in a number of years. In addition, there is a lack of evaluation, a lack of ongoing monitoring and a lack of start-up grants for day care. The only thing that happens is when there is a crisis. When a parent complains about child abuse or sexual abuse or some form of abuse in a day care, at that point the ministry intervenes.

We find the same thing happening with foster homes. Again, it was announced that as of April 1 there is going to be an increase of 5 percent in foster home rates, which means that instead of the foster home rate being 10 percent below what the United Way says is needed to care for a child, it's now going to be only 5 percent below that. The increase is still not going to bring the rate up to what the United Way indicates is necessary to raise a child. We find that foster parents are being called upon to subsidize the children placed in their care by the Ministry of Human Resources.

We also find, as a direct result of the problems which all families are finding now — as a direct result of various cutbacks and shortages in services — that children are coming into care and going into foster homes more damaged than ever before. Yet there is no training for these foster parents.

[ Page 5415 ]

They are being asked to take care of very sick and damaged kids. In addition, they are being asked to subsidize the care of those children. And speaking on behalf of the children, they are also not being monitored, evaluated and supervised on a continuing scale. That is not happening.

In cutting back a number of these services, the ministry indicated that the volunteer sector should take responsibility for them. So the United Way did a little survey, and it found that in 1984 it raised $11.6 million in donations from the people of British Columbia. I think we have to congratulate the people of British Columbia on their generosity — the United Way raised $11.6 million. But they calculated that the services cut by the ministry in that same year came to approximately $22 million, minimum — probably more. They decided that if they were in fact to do as the ministry suggested and pick up the slack, they would have to raise more than twice what they raised in donations in the same year. It's just not possible. They haven't got the tax base; they haven't got the budget. The volunteer sector cannot take responsibility for a family- and child-care program; it cannot put into place a street-worker program; it cannot take responsibility for funding a decent child abuse program or day-care program. There just isn't the funding for that.

In addition, this parent — the Ministry of Human Resources — has started contracting out and privatizing services to children. Mr. Speaker, we are opposed completely and totally to the delivery of children's services being privatized for profit. We do not think that parents should be making a profit off the children in their jurisdiction and in their care, which is what the ministry is trying to do when it supports profit-making privatized services.

In other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, in other areas, particularly in the delivery of health care, where profit-making privatization has been instituted, it has not been cost-effective, and the quality of the care has deteriorated dramatically. Now there is a question as to whether the quality of care which the children are getting under this ministry can deteriorate much more. But I think it could, if the ministry insists on privatization for profit. But even where there is privatization not for profit, the ministry has not put into place any accountability system of these private resources. There is no ongoing monitoring or evaluation of these private resources. How does the minister know what quality of care is being given to the children in these resources? The ministry has no way of knowing unless there is a crisis, unless something goes wrong, unless a complaint has been laid. Then the ministry becomes aware of the situation and at that point intervenes.

That is not the act of a good parent. That is not the act of a competent parent, Mr. Speaker. In this budget there is no indication that this ministry is going to start taking better responsibility for the children in its care. The children who have the misfortune to be apprehended by the Ministry of Human Resources are in clear and imminent danger. There isn't any question about it, because they are being very badly used.

[11:45]

The Ministry of Human Resources should immediately replace the $2 million which has been removed from the family and children resource budget. The Ministry of Human Resources should immediately reinstate the workers for family and child care, because they were a preventive service that benefited not just the children and the families but the community as a whole.

There are people in Surrey, Langley, Richmond and Chinatown who are concerned about the behaviour of the gangs. They should call for an immediate reinstatement of the family support workers. They should also call for an immediate reinstatement of the street workers. A lot of work and research has been done by Queen Mary School in North Vancouver, by the B.C. Association of Social Workers, by the United Way, by the RCMP and by the city of Vancouver as to the value of street workers, if the ministry needs any additional information about that. But the way to deal with the children on the street, to identify the children coming on the street, Mr. Speaker, is to have a worker on the street.

Now for all of British Columbia there are five outreach workers sitting in their offices, dealing with crises. Each of these workers has a caseload of 20 kids. In all of British Columbia there are three group homes, two Rainbow Houses and one other, all in the lower mainland, 15 beds to deal with adolescents and juveniles who are in need of special attention and special care. There are something like 200 teenage prostitutes on the street in Vancouver, and for the whole province we have 15 beds in three group homes, Mr. Speaker, and a waiting-list as long as your arm. But the way of dealing with that is by placing workers on the street, using that $2 million which was sucked out of the budget to return the family support workers, to deal with preventing crises in the family, to keep these kids from running away from home or, if that is not possible, to have the street worker there once they hit the street.

In addition, we really need an after-care program for kids once they get to be the age of 19. It is a disgrace that 60 percent of those children are simply abandoned. As soon as a child reaches the age of 19, that child is simply abandoned by the Ministry of Human Resources. No support services, no network that the child would have if it were in a family and had relatives and friends, just thrown onto the street — what kind of parent is that, Mr. Speaker? And immediately, of course, they return to income assistance, and perhaps in many instances never manage to get off income assistance because there certainly are no incentives built in to helping people to get off income assistance.

In addition, we need in this province an independent children's advocate to take care and speak on behalf of children. The superintendent of child welfare used to do that job. This government eliminated that position and said that we did not need a superintendent of child welfare, that the Deputy Minister of Human Resources could do that job. Clearly the Deputy Minister of Human Resources cannot do the job. The situation of children in this province is worse than it has ever been in the hundred or so years that this province has existed. We need an independent advocate. Whatever you want to call that person, clearly that person is needed: an independent ombudsperson.

We need an interministerial children's committee which really cares about kids and is effective in its work. That is not the case at this time. There is such a committee, but no one knows if it ever meets. It certainly hasn't been meeting on a regular basis, and it certainly has not been caring for the children of the province.

We want not just a re-establishment but an extension of the child abuse teams. The child abuse line is effective in terms of kids being able to phone in and indicate that they're in a threatening situation. But nothing happens after the phone call is received; it's referred to the region. The overworked social workers admit that it is taking them longer and

[ Page 5416 ]

longer to actually get out and investigate those complaints. Certainly, as I said earlier, all of the constituency offices around the province are receiving reports that abuse complaints are not being followed up quickly enough. As you may know, for example, that young woman prostitute who was murdered recently was a ward of the Ministry of Human Resources.

I cannot state strongly enough what a very bad parent I think the Ministry of Human Resources is, and how much I oppose the withdrawal of that $2 million from the budget.

In addition, I think — and I notice my green light is on, so I'm going to move really quickly here — the ministry, the government, has to establish and maintain guidelines and ongoing monitoring of those programs for children and youth which are operated by the private sector. The level of maintenance, whether it is through income assistance, the GAIN rates — which have not been increased since 1982 — or the foster care rates — which are apparently going to be increased on April 1— has to be brought up to the poverty line. The increase which has been announced for foster care rates is not good enough. That 5 percent increase is not going to bring the care for a child up to the poverty line. And the GAIN rate has to be increased. There is something really cynical about a government which would increase the budget to cover the number of people going on income assistance, but not increase the amount of money which those people on income assistance are receiving.

Finally, the government should establish a follow-up program for foster children and for other children in care, so that on reaching the age of 19 there is some kind of safety net, some kind of support service for them. They should not be just abandoned by the ministry at that time.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention that there is only one government member in this House, that we do not have a quorum. I think the non-attendance of government members in this Legislature is a scandalous situation. I challenge the quorum, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I can identify ten members in the House, including the Speaker. May we now proceed?

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, in my earlier address I mentioned that I would seek leave to table a number of recommendations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe you're out of order just at the moment. Are you talking about tabling, Mr. Member.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That's correct,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're dealing with the question of the quorum at this time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Okay. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I now count a quorum in the House and would ask the proceedings to continue.

The member for Okanagan North on a point of order.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you. As I mentioned a moment ago, I had intended to seek leave to table a number of recommendations that I had addressed in my earlier discussion. I would so ask leave at this time.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise to support the budget that has been placed before this House by the Minister of Finance. I think it's fair to say that the budget addresses the realities of today. We've had the difficult years, and I think it's fair to say that those years are now behind us.

Think for a minute, if you will, that three years ago the word that we all talked about was "inflation." Do you remember that every headline talked about inflation and how fast things were going up, how prices were doubling and tripling, how house prices were reaching the stratosphere? We don't hear the word "inflation" anymore. It's a thing of the past.

You can remember that two years ago the word was "recession." Then, of course, the word was "restraint." Those two words made the headlines in the news media. Today the word is "renewal, " because the economy is improving and because of this budget that's been brought in. It is a program of renewal for the economy of British Columbia.

We've attempted in this budget to seek a way in which government can assist in that renewal. Granted, the economy is improving. More people are working today than were working in 1983. Activity is there, albeit slow. Unemployment is still unacceptably high, but the NDP approach in trying to address that problem, trying to solve the problem.... I can accept that it's their philosophy, and I don't deny them that right of having a different philosophy than I have, but their solution is to buy up failing businesses. That's what they said during the last election campaign, and that's what their track record has shown.

The former administration bought up a number of businesses, including Ocean Falls, with taxpayers' dollars and became a competitor with the private sector. The former Minister of Lands and Forests from the previous administration knows full well what I'm talking about when I say "buying up" in the resource sector.

They got involved in the chicken business with Panco Poultry. They got involved in the food processing business with Swan Valley Foods, and sawmills, pulp mills, etc., because it was their philosophy. They felt if they took the taxpayers' dollars and purchased a business that was failing, they would keep those jobs. But what they didn't understand was that in an economy that lives on competition, and through competition provides a product at a fair price, those who are inefficient or obsolete or poorly managed fail, and those who are competitive are economically viable and succeed. The benefactor of that system is the consumer. But their philosophy says, "no." Basically, if you extend their philosophy far enough, it's very simple: everybody works for government and we'll have zero unemployment. That's what their philosophy would lead you to in the end.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) says: "How do you pay for it?" That's exactly right, Mr. Minister. How do you pay for it if everybody's working for government? Because government can only take from the taxpayer to fill its coffers to pay its employees.

[ Page 5417 ]

Our philosophy is to let the private sector work, to let the competitive forces of the marketplace take hold, to let the man with the new product, the new concept, the new idea get out there and compete. Some will fail and some will succeed. But the consumer will be the benefactor in that system. We have to look at less regulation as a government, because more regulation only stifles the private sector and causes them great difficulty in remaining or becoming competitive.

We've got to stop taxing. Less tax — and I mean less tax before production. I think the budget addresses it. When you think of what a company, large or small, pays in taxes, don't just think taxes on profit. Think of the employer's contribution to the Canada Pension Plan, to workers' compensation, to unemployment insurance; those are taxes, Mr. Speaker. When a man puts up his equity, whether the business is large or small, he has to pay those taxes up front, before he makes a profit. Water rates, electric rates, pension plans, health plans, dental plans: all those are taxes. Rightly so; he should provide those benefits to the employees. But let's not add more taxes.

That's what this budget is really saying: let's give some relief now; let's help the private sector recover as the economy improves. I think it's an excellent effort. Let's make them able to earn a profit, and then we'll tax the profit. There's not one private enterprise businessman in this province or this country who wouldn't say: "Alleluia! I agree with that."

Mr. Speaker, the thrust of the budget is also one of controlled government spending, has been for the last few years and will continue to be so. The Minister of Finance has said that. But when you look at the budget — let's say it as it is — there is an increase in the Health budget, there is an increase in dollars in the Education budget, there is an increase in dollars in the Human Resources budget, and not one opposition member can deny that. That's because there is a commitment there.

[12:00]

But it seems that what we have to do is try and get this message across, because you sure wouldn't get it by reading the media, in my opinion — it is always cutbacks. Yet with all those hard things that we've done and the accusation of cutbacks, the budgets this year are greater than in previous years. Mr. Speaker, after all that tough slugging, we have anticipated another $890 million deficit at the end of the fiscal year 1985-86.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's confidence.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, that's reality: the reality of the fact that we have an obligation to provide social services in this province. We accept that we're going further into debt, but at least we're controlling that debt. That's far more than your party has got a record for, Mr. Member.

This budget also addresses the incentives to build and to expand. We've given those incentives to the business sector. We want them in the business community to create permanent productive jobs. We said: "Look, you expand your plant, buy new machinery and equipment, bring in a new business. We're going to give you assistance and support, but it's a key because we want you to create permanent productive jobs in this province, not make-work efforts."

Mr. Speaker, we can do this because we started in 1982, because we identified a problem then. I have to tell you that today, right now in Ottawa if I'm not mistaken, the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson, is having a conference on the economy, a $1 million conference, and he's invited leaders from management, from unions, from the business community and from the finance community, because he's got a problem. He anticipates a $35 billion deficit federally this year with an accumulated deficit of $200 billion for the government, the people of Canada. He asked them three questions. I heard it on CBC this morning. He stood up in his opening remarks and said: "I want to ask you, the businessmen, the union leaders: how do we address the deficit? How much do we deal with it this year? How much of a reduction in that deficit can we achieve? How fast do you want me to reduce and eliminate the deficit?"

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an endorsement of this government's policies, that meeting this morning is it. The government has called in the private sector to get advice, instruction if you will, the same as we did in this province two years ago, the same as the Minister of Finance did all last year in meeting with the business community, the same as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) did in going out meeting with the municipalities. The federal government is listening to the people, and we're the leaders in this province because we identified that we had to understand what was happening in the business community so we could develop policies which would help the economy recover. Mr. Speaker, that's a pretty good endorsement of this government's policies and the leadership of this government, even though the opposition failed to see it.

Deregulation must continue to be addressed; there's no question about that. We tend to have lawyers draw up legislation, we pass it, and then we leave it on the books for year after year after year. We attempted to improve that situation, as you recall, a number of years ago, and brought in the Ministry of Deregulation. We achieved some success and some failure too. We had a committee of deregulation, which I chaired; last year it brought forward a number of recommendations to my colleagues to ask them to deal with these areas that we identified as being in systems or in procedures or in regulation or legislation unneeded, unnecessary and a restrictive measure that impacted on the private sector. As recently as yesterday I met with JJ Camp, a lawyer with Ladner Downs and past president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, and he said to me: "I like what you did in deregulation. I know you guys are trying to cut out the red tape, but you've still got a long way to go." I'm hoping that my ministry staff and I can sit down with representatives of the B.C. bar association to continue exploring those areas of deregulation, because I think it's most important to get that red tape reduced.

The education system: we increased the budget. I just told you that and you can see it in your book, but it's stated that it's not enough. The people who object — other than those who do it for political reasons — say: " What we have in the education system must stay. It's etched in stone. We must have this course; we must have that course. Because it's there it is right and perfect." That's not true, Mr. Speaker. If that's the way we approach the problem, it's putting your head in the sand, because you must always look at your education system to ensure that what is there is current and up to date. If it's no longer necessary, delete it and add something new,

They can accept no pay freeze for the teachers of this province, but they don't recognize that our budgets at the school board and provincial levels dictate that we must live within the ability to pay. Normally, the issue that I hear about

[ Page 5418 ]

most of all today is not student education, it's teachers' salaries. Eighty percent of the school budget goes for teachers' salaries. If there was a pay freeze for a year.... Never mind going to Mr. Peck and the compensation stabilization program. If the teachers of this province said, "We won't accept an increase, " I imagine we wouldn't have any loss of teachers. There's sufficient money in the budget, more than there was last year. Eighty percent of it is salaries; ergo we should be able to keep the same number of teachers if they keep it at that level for one year. Many other people have done just that in various other sectors of the economy.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's your system.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, maybe it's our system; then we should change it. The budget speech allows me free rein to say what I think, and I would point out that if it's our system, maybe we should change it.

Let me give you another problem that I want to comment on: school teachers on school boards. It's wrong. Someone is going to tell me: "But you can't sit as a school teacher on your own school board." Granted, you can't do that, but there are many teachers who live in one school district and sit on school boards in adjacent school districts. I've got them in my constituency. I believe — and someone can correct me if I'm wrong — that the president, the vice-president and the past president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association are either teachers or former teachers. I've heard that, and if I'm wrong I'll apologize, but my understanding is that those three positions have been filled by teachers or former teachers. I'm not against the school teacher, but I am for the parents and the children.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The solution, in my opinion, is to let those school board members be representatives of their community in a nonbiased fashion. Let non-biased people give direction at the school board level. They can always turn to their teachers and say: "Give us some input. You people deal with the children all the time." But at least leave the decision-making process to a person who is truly unbiased.

AN HON. MEMBER: Uninformed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm glad you raised it, Mr. Member. I said that they can turn to their school teachers and ask for advice. They can go to their staff and ask for technical input; they can hire consultants; they can communicate with the Ministry of Education. But if we don't address the problem and the impact of biased decision-making at the school board level — unintentionally or intentionally — we'll continue to deal with the issue of dollars rather than the education of our children.

One last item, and it came to me this morning as I read the Province. During the throne speech I raised the matter of equality for the Indian and the white man. I spoke to an empty House at that time and I'm not doing much better this time, except that I do have some young people in the audience, which I appreciate. I stated at that time that I didn't have the answers to the Indian problem, and I hoped the negotiators at the federal-provincial level would find the answers. Today I read an article entitled: "Indians Win Dollar Battle." Let me quote: "The B.C. Court of Appeal" — the learned judge, the learned court of appeal — "yesterday ruled Indians who buy a car or truck on a reserve are exempt from paying sales tax on it under provisions of the Social Service Tax Act" — a provincial act. David Mossop, the lawyer, added that the savings to the Indians and the loss to provincial revenues would be enormous. He went on to say that the effect of the decision would be that Indians could set up, say, a gas station on the reserve and not have to pay tax on the gas. They could charge prices much lower than anywhere else. We're talking about millions of dollars in years to come. Couple that decision with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Indians working on reserves are exempt from paying income tax, and that gives the natives quite an edge in businesses set up on reserves.

"'No Indian is subject to tax in respect of ownership, possession or use of the personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve, ' ruled Justice Alan McFarlane. 'If there is any ambiguity in the legislation.... it should be resolved in favour of the Indian who claims an exemption."' I have to tell you that the learned lawyer, Mr. Mossop, stated in his closing paragraph — if he is quoted correctly: "I think the provincial government should be quite happy with this decision. They wanted special economic zones .... and now they've got them." Isn't that marvellous! That is the wrong decision. It is unfair, it is un-Canadian and that court of appeal judge should be chastised for what he has done.

There are schools in this province where the Indian children are taught and for which every man and woman in this room pays taxes. Why doesn't the Indian pay taxes? There are hospitals in this province where Indians, when they're injured or sick, get served — and rightly so. The sales tax, if I recall correctly, is a social services tax that was put in place to help offset the costs of hospitalization. Now they are taking the stance — supported by a learned judge — that, no, they shall not pay it. It's wrong.

We've gone through land claims. We've gone through cutoff lands. In my constituency the Penticton Indian band, if I recall, got in excess of $10 million in a land claim settlement, and thousands of acres. I have no objection to that, but I am concerned that we address the Indian affairs issue in this country. I have no objection to them becoming Canadian — nor should anybody. I know that they can retain their culture and their heritage. But we must find a solution before it's too late for their kids — for the young Indian boy and girl coming along in the future. We will be a land divided. In the end there's going to be a backlash like you've never seen if this trend continues. The courts and the judges and the lawyers must understand that they're not just playing with words on paper, they're playing with the future of this province. We are all part of the same community.

Thomas Berger, a former NDP leader and a former judge, stated: "They" — the Indians — "wish to achieve a measure of self-determination and self-government." Mr. Speaker, the issue of self-determination and self-government is being discussed now at the federal-provincial level. What is selfgovernment? Somebody tell me what that is. Is it the local level? Is it the band council? Is it like a municipal council? Or is it — and stretch your imagination a little farther down the road, when the politicians and lawyers get involved — an Indian nation within Canada? Is it their own flag? Is it their own laws? Is it their own taxation measures? Is it a mandatory seat in this House — mandatory that there will be an Indian representing his Indian nation in this House? Or will he sit in here duly elected by the people of his constituency, as did

[ Page 5419 ]

Frank Calder, the former member for Atlin? The recent decision, in my opinion, would imply that self-government could mean just that.

[12:15]

When you say that sales tax for the province of British Columbia doesn't apply to sales on Indian reserves, that's wrong. It should be changed. As we said in the throne speech, we should not try to rearrange the sands of time. That's not the issue. The issue is that we should look to the future to see how we can help the Indian people. We should do that for the sake of the Indian children. We should provide for equal opportunity. We should provide for equal education of the Indian child, and we should provide for equal opportunity in the work place for Indian and white man alike. They're no different, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, than any other minority group in this province or this country. They should, Mr. Speaker, be part of the Canadian mosaic, and the way that the legal world today is going — with judges such as the one that made this ruling — they will not become part of the Canadian mosaic. That is unfair, and in my opinion it's not correct that we should be going down that road as opposed to trying to bring them into the Canadian mosaic and making them part of Canada.

Issues such as land claims and cutoff lands, self-determination and self-government must be set aside. As I said, that Indian community should surely become part of the Canadian mosaic, no different than any other minority group. I'll be accused of being uncaring, and I'll be told by the learned people who deal with these things that I don't understand the problems. I'll be told that. I'm just a country bumpkin; I'm just a kid from the interior. But, Mr. Speaker, many Indians will also tell me that I'm a racist. They'll say: "You're a racist. You're trying to take our culture and our heritage away from us." I'm not, Mr. Speaker. I'm speaking out because I'm concerned about the future of that Indian child, that young person who has to come up and compete in a modem twentieth century world. I'm concerned about the Indian community. We must stop this madness of such decisions as the 7 percent sales tax — the decision that says: "You don't have to pay sales tax." You have to pay sales tax, I have to pay sales tax, but an Indian purchasing a product in the province of British Columbia does not have to pay sales tax. That's wrong, and it will only further divide us.

I hope that my colleagues, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Premier will give leadership at the federal-provincial meetings which are scheduled and which are going on, I guess, on and off at the present time. I hope when they meet they'll give that leadership with the goal of making Canada for all Canadians, with equal opportunity, equality and accountability for all.

If we can achieve that one goal — finally to resolve the matter of the Indian problem or question — and do it in a rational way, not in one of confrontation or conflict at these meetings, but one where the leaders of both white man and Indian alike can sit down and say: "We've got to think of the future. We cannot think in the past. We cannot rearrange the sands of time. We cannot put aside the hurt that was caused by decisions made by people who came before us.... We can't resolve those issues any differently than we can resolve the issue of the Acadian in New Brunswick or the Japanese during the Second World War, when people were moved from the coast into the interior. We can't change that, Mr. Speaker, but we can change the future if we address the problem in a rational manner.

I know the Attorney-General, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and the Premier will all accept that responsibility and will do their utmost, as they have in the past, to try to sit down and reach a reasoned conclusion — and hopefully one which will be accepted by the Indian community — so that we can look to the future.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of raising these issues, both the one with the school board representative and the one on Indian affairs, during the budget speech. As I've said before, we do have a fair amount of flexibility. I want to say in closing that my hat is off to the Minister of Finance, who worked long and hard during the past year trying to get input from the community, talking to everybody. He spent a lot of time on the road and set a fine example for the federal Minister of Finance, who is going through the same thing, although he's brought everybody to Ottawa and has been accused of spending $1 million on a conference.

But at least I think we set the example on how to get input prior to making tax changes or prior to bringing in a budget. I compliment him for his work, and I appreciate the opportunity to support his budget.

MR. BARNES: I've had better days, Mr. Speaker. I have a bit of a cold.

I must say the member who just took his seat may have misled the House somewhat. I'm no expert, Mr. Speaker — I think I'm in order. This is the budget speech, is it not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The term "misled" could be considered unparliamentary. I'm sure the member is aware of that. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: I would say that perhaps his interpretation of the fact with respect to Indians' exemption from the sales tax seems to me somewhat misleading. I think he was making reference to the situation on reservations, not general purchasing at department stores and other retail places in the community. There is a difference. He didn't mention reservations, to my knowledge.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: He did? Okay.

I hope the minister will follow up and will be having consultations with the various native groups in the province. I hope that he is sincere, because certainly in making the speech he's just made in the House, it gives the impression that he has some very strong views. I agree with him in the respect that something should be done, and this government should sit down and talk seriously and honestly with the native people in this province to try to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to take my place in the debate this afternoon to oppose the budget speech. I don't need to repeat all of the reasons why, but essentially I am opposed to the budget as being anything other than another government sham, to try to deceive the public in terms of its ability to manage its affairs.

Mr. Speaker, before I get started on my remarks, which have to do with the young people....

[ Page 5420 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the member should in all decency withdraw the statement "a sham to deceive the public."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There wouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule. The language is a bit unparliamentary....

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly withdraw. I'm not in a confrontational mood this afternoon. I will withdraw, because I think the document speaks for itself. The minister knows the document speaks for itself.

Let me just make an introduction. Mr. Speaker, I notice that in the galleries are some 130 young people. They call themselves the Canadian Girls in Training, CGIT. Since we've been talking about young people, education and so forth, I would hope that the House will welcome these people.

I will now proceed, Mr. Speaker. If you will bear with me, I have the type of glasses that are okay when I am reading, but I can't see you.

Mr. Speaker, it may be a cliché, but it is nonetheless true: youth are our future, our most valuable resource. Sadly, this government does not appear to consider them our most valued resource.

Today's youth face a most difficult future. They are fearful of their inability to participate in the decision-making process. They are fearful that they will not have jobs or have little job security and tend to be poorly paid.

A recent study by the Canadian Mental Health Association revealed that young people, who are primarily employed in blue-collar sales and service jobs if they are men, and sales, service and clerical jobs if they are women, frequently involve irregular and inconvenient shift work with evening and weekend hours. Many of those young people have only part-time employment, which is characterized by poor compensation and few, if any, benefits. One in four youths in B.C. is unemployed. The rate for native youths, which were referred to by the minister earlier, is considerably higher.

Picking up on some of the points that were made earlier by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), she was giving a breakdown on the systematic dismantling of the support network for young people and for families and for those people who are coming into the workforce. The government removed the street worker in Vancouver's east side, and tells of a 90 percent to 100 percent unemployment among young natives in that part of the city. These people don't have low expectations; they don't have any expectations at all.

Young people are fearful of the ever-present danger of a nuclear holocaust. In the last three months, three Canadian universities have held student referenda to determine whether or not the students wish the university to have a supply of cyanide on hand so that in the event of a nuclear attack they would have the option of suicide. That's a cynical commentary, but it has, in fact, happened.

It is horrid sometimes for us in the Legislature to really understand the state of mind that exists among our young people today. I don't believe that I am being an alarmist when I suggest that young people, more than any other group, need understanding. They need to have a means by which they can express themselves, and more importantly, they would like to see some results. They'd like to feel that they are capable of initiating action, but the budget has not addressed these concerns in any serious measure.

The youth of today are fearful. They are uncertain of their educational future and their opportunities in post-secondary institutions. The B.C. Federation of Students, Mr. Speaker, reports that hundreds of young people wish to attend college or university, but they are unable to afford the tuition. They are unable to obtain sufficient financing. Is it any wonder, then, that so many young people feel alienated and resentful of the legacy we prepare to pass on to them?

[12:30]

Mr. Speaker, what has Social Credit done to aid and assist our next generation, so that they can enter adulthood secure and confident in the knowledge that they are well prepared to face the future? The Social Credit government has attacked the public education system and its associated support services to such an extent that children in public schools can no longer be assured they will receive an adequate education, in spite of the excellent, highly qualified and dedicated staff, who are unable to give each child the special attention needed due to staff cuts.

The government has reduced a very important English-as-a-second-language program, in spite of the fact that in many communities English is not the first but the second language of many new Canadians. They no longer have access to the additional assistance they require and deserve, nor is it available.

The government has reduced the funding to post-secondary institutions so that class sizes have decreased, courses have been eliminated and tuition fees have risen dramatically, while at the same time the changes to the student financial aid system have meant a higher debt load for those who must borrow to finance their education.

At Capilano College in North Vancouver the crafts programs are being threatened because the government does not consider the contribution made by artists and craftspersons as being as worthy as those made by computer technicians, for instance. The graduates of this craft program have a reputation of being among the finest in the country. The graduates from these programs go on to work and display their crafts. They go on to do fulfilling work as craftspeople in our province.

The whole question of culture and of the arts and of the economic value of dollars spent in the arts community is unfortunately not very well known. But there is documented evidence that at least 60 percent of every dollar that goes into the arts is a working dollar that stays active in the community, and that every dollar that's spent usually is involved in far greater returns because of the kinds of subsidies that individual artists involve themselves in, the kinds of volunteers who are involved in these projects, the kind of training that's necessary, and the lonely hours, so to speak, of preparing oneself in order to make an artistic statement. All of these are dollars that are unrenumerated, so to speak, by the system.

But the system benefits. Tourism benefits; art collectors benefit — the public generally has someone guarding and looking after the heritage of a community. We get a great deal of benefit from the so-called basketweaving courses that the government feels it can just slash without consideration of the consequences of doing so.

The government has reduced funding as well to the health services which support adolescent psychiatric care, forcing the closure of Vancouver General Hospital's only adolescent psychiatric unit for seven weeks this summer.

Interjection.

[ Page 5421 ]

MR. BARNES: I hear some of the members across the House saying: "Read the budget." Are you suggesting, Mr. Minister of International Trade or whatever you call yourself lately, that the Vancouver General Hospital is not going to close and has no intention of closing that psychiatric unit for youth this summer for seven weeks?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Are you saying it's not being used? You see, Mr. Speaker, he is saying that the centre is not necessary and is not going to be used in the summer.

What studies have you done to suggest that there will be no crisis where young people may be slashing their wrists or may be in need of urgent help? Do you have any idea? Were you listening to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds talking about the incidence of suicides among young people — the desperate situations people find themselves in?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's no wonder they're depressed, with an opposition like you.

MR. BARNES: It's not a question of opposition, Mr. Member It's a question of stating a serious situation that requires responsibility on the part of this government. I'm not concerned about opposing; I'm trying to get the government's attention on a serious situation.

Mr. Speaker, this subject that we're discussing today, youth, is a subject that the government probably figures to be frivolous and of no significance. What have we heard about the government's youth programs? What about the government's job creation programs for young people? We had the Minister of Labour make a joint announcement with the federal Minister of Employment that there was going to be $30 million available for youth work this summer. Some $19.5 million of that was going to be spent by the federal government; we have yet to hear anything from the Minister of Labour about the province of British Columbia participating. We have yet to hear a word, and yet that has been an announcement as recently as a few weeks ago. How come the government isn't talking about its initiative with respect to making jobs for youth? Because it's not making any.

This isn't a question of opposition. These are facts. The Minister of International Trade is over there saying that we should read the budget. He's talking about economic zones, all these great innovative ideas he has, and yet one viable economic zone already exists in the province, one that should be used as an example of what could happen with this so-called cooperation and individual initiative that you keep harping about. That is the Chinatown-Gastown area, and you're putting up a bloody wall around the place. You're putting a wall around it and telling people they have to pay to go into one area that is already viable.

Let me go back to reading my speech. It's not as exciting, and it gives you a chance not to get involved. But don't get me riled up, because you know what I'm talking about. You know you're not doing anything for the people. You don't intend to. You're standing up high and mighty and telling the people that when things get better, Mr. Speaker.... All we have is a trickle-down theory of economics on that side of the House. Some 15 percent of the people are unemployed in this province — 15 percent, Mr. Speaker, and don't you forget it. That's a lot of people out of nearly three million, and the minister has the gall to stand up and say: "We have increased social assistance payments. We are committed to social programs." You've got to increase them if you don't give people jobs. What do you expect? They're going to be rioting in the streets. This isn't something you should be lauding; it's something you should be ashamed of. You're not even bringing them up to standard.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That member over there is admitting that this government is going to perpetuate mediocrity and a low class of standard of living for the people of this province. Those rates, which were never adequate in the first place, haven't been increased for three years. You know that they've been frozen. But your travel around the world hasn't been frozen; in fact, you've doubled your travel expenses. So let's just get the facts straight. You don't have to read the budget to find that out.

Interjections,

MR. BARNES: Listen, Mr. Minister, I can yell as loud as you can. It's not all that effective. But if you want to yell, I can yell with you any day, Mr. Minister — any day, louder. We don't have to talk, just yell. If you want to listen to what's going on, then just calm yourself down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. I'll ask other members of the House not to interrupt the member now taking his place in debate, and I'll ask the member to address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read this clipping, because this minister is starting to act as though....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Listen to him. Have you heard him stand up in this debate and say anything yet?

AN HON. MEMBER: We all heard him the other day.

MR. BARNES: You can hear him, but you can't understand anything, because he's not coherent.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a great example for the kids.

MR. BARNES: That's right. This is what the young people are watching here today, the kind of display this government.... I'm talking about the youth. I'm talking about this government's lack of support for International Youth Year — no designation. I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker, before I read this. I'm going to suggest something to you, Mr. Minister....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, let's have a yelling match. Let's let it all hang out.

[ Page 5422 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will come to order. If any other member wishes to yell while another member is taking his place in the debate, the Chair can accommodate that: you can yell all you want outside this chamber.

MR. BARNES: I was just trying to make a peaceful statement, Mr. Speaker, that was prepared by our hard-working researchers. I did not want to get riled up; all I was going to do was state it on the record so that the party's position would be clear with respect to these problems. But when this man keeps harping, Mr. Speaker, it more than annoys me; it shows me how difficult it really is for the young people of this province to try to get anywhere. I came in here sincerely trying to communicate. I notice the Premier has come in and he's looking himself.

But I want to say something to you. I'm at the point now where we're just going to do some talking. Going back a little bit, you will recall that a few years ago there was a young man by the name of Terry Fox jogging around at Simon Fraser University. The story is interesting, because the present member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who came in after the former Attorney-General, Mr. Williams, was a radio hotliner for CJOR. He and his girl Friday at the time — Margaret Chew, I believe was her name — were good enough to allow me to participate in the campaign to try to get some attention for poor Terry Fox, who was jogging around and trying to motivate some interest so that he could do his run across Canada. I'm sure that if that member were here he would confirm that I'm telling you the exact facts. He himself participated in those initial promotions. But you know, Fox was well on his way and halfway back before we finally got this government to recognize a resolution that was sitting on this order paper for months, trying to get them involved.

That happens to be a fact. I'm not going to run that down too long. This government has finally learned to begin to recognize the efforts of people who are disadvantaged. Mind you, they're doing it selectively, because many other people are out trying to demonstrate that they too have been inspired by the efforts of Terry Fox. We stated in this House that his deed would inspire many people across the country and in the world. The fellow who followed him — Steve Fonyo — is another Terry Fox. He is doing much better. The government began to recognize and has made some contributions and overtures. There was another fellow who has been inspiring. He's now running across Canada and will go down to Mexico and come back in town for Expo. I don't know if the government gave him a sendoff, but that's Al Howie, the running machine. We all know "Running Machine Al."

Then there was another guy who got involved in doing something. It was a senior citizen who claimed that he walked, ran or something across Canada. Do you remember Frank Crawshaw? Or was it Harry Crawshaw? I believe that was the name. I believe the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) gave him a sendoff and shook his hand out here in front of the House. That's good too. That's recognizing merit in individual effort and initiative. The government has really shown that it recognizes the effort of individuals, because we now have someone who has had an exemplary past and who has continuously shown himself to be an inspiration to people all over the world........ I'm speaking of the young man who is now going around the world on a 25,000-mile tour: Rick Hansen. I want to associate myself, by the way, with the remarks made by the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), who yesterday stated the details regarding this trip around the world.

We can all align and we can all grow and we can all come around to some kind of reality, but this government has gone one step further in recognizing the feats of this athlete. He has been recognized as the Man in Motion. But these youths are also in motion. In fact, they are immobile, trying to get mobile. They're trying to get somewhere. We recognize the feats of these stars, and we need them; but there are other people who are inspired as well, and I think this government should stop and look. The inspiration is working people starting to care. They're starting to want some hope.

You've got a situation so bad that the academics are beginning to run away from the province — God rest their souls. I wish they would stay and fight. Nonetheless, they are running away — because they are being pushed. They're being interfered with. They're being oppressed by this government. They're being pushed to the point where they cannot in good conscience carry on their jobs. We've got a fight on our hands with this government. The government knows it. We cannot run anymore, and the youth cannot run anymore. We're going to have to start fighting. It's going to be a sacrifice, but we're going to have to fight.

The article that I was going to read is entitled "Not So Merry-Go-Round." The date is not too clear, but I know it was only a few weeks ago. If I could get the attention of the Minister of International Trade (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who was very interested in this subject of psychiatric services for youth at Vancouver General Hospital.... I want to point out to him this recently published statement with respect to his government's intentions and desire to try to assist the youth of the province of British Columbia:

"The provincial Ministry of Health approved a 25-bed unit at Queen Alexandra Hospital for Children, for adolescents with acute mental illnesses, in mid-1983. The project has been on hold ever since. Approval on paper, yes; money to make it happen, no.

"If Queen Alexandra fostered any hopes that funding for the unit might be near, they were dashed by this week's news that Vancouver General Hospital will close the province's only adolescent psychiatric unit for seven weeks this summer to save money. 'The tragedy is that there is no other place for them to go,' said pediatric specialist Dr. Roger Tonkin. 'There are no middle-ground services left.' The director of the ten-bed unit that is to be closed, Dr. Sadi Bayrakal, went farther. 'I don't want to say that children may die, but it may be true, he said. 'There is real danger suicidal attempts may be repeated."'

And all the minister has to say to me is: "We don't have those problems in the summertime — that's the slow period. So we can close them down and make a few bucks."

I'm glad the minister has toned down. Perhaps I can continue to make my points on things that the Social Credit government has done. They consistently ignore professionals who advise the government that it costs less of the taxpayer's money to provide support and preventive services for young people than it does to pay for corrections and treatment services. The government has reacted to the symbolic gesture of posting nuclear-free zones — for instance, signs along the highway — by ordering the removal of these signs as they contravene roadside sign regulations. Instead of being more

[ Page 5423 ]

supportive to the expression of concern that people are making, this government ordered that these signs be removed.

As well, the government has failed to make a firm commitment in the budget for the creation of jobs for young people. I pointed that out to you earlier. What are some of the things the government could do, some of the things that would happen if I and my colleagues were able to implement the programs of a New Democratic government? Certainly we would establish an interministerial committee on youth as a coordinating body, thus encouraging and welcoming the participation of young people in the decision-making process. We would closely examine European and other models which combine formal education and vocational training, thus linking the transition from school to employment. We would target the native groups, the disabled, the uneducated youth for special assistance, which everyone knows they require. We would establish day programs for severely disabled young adults who are unable to benefit from existing programs. We would reinstate compulsory physical education whereby people may appreciate the benefit of being in good health. That, of course, is obviously something everyone knows, but very few people are encouraged and made to feel that it is a positive thing to do.

We would provide driver education programs through the education system. We would provide birth control counselling. Every day in British Columbia 18 teenage girls become pregnant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time under standing orders has expired.

MR. BARNES: I have just a minute or two more.

Educational opportunities in job training must be made available for teenage mothers. We would remove the discrimination against young people in social assistance payments. We would remove the barriers, be they financial, geographic, cultural, which prevent young British Columbians from pursuing secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, I would wind up by saying what a tragedy, what a waste that these young people, at the peak of their idealism, their health, their energy, should be lost not only to themselves but to society. The result is of enormous financial, social and cultural cost to all Canadians.

HON. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.