[ Page 5899 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

School district budgets. Mr. Skelly –– 5900

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lauk

Education policy. Mr. Rose –– 5901

Manning Park sale. Mr. Mitchell –– 5901

Okanagan bingo operations. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5902

Presenting Petitions

Ms. Sanford –– 5902

Tabling Documents –– 5903

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

On vote 42: minister's office –– 5903

Ms. Brown

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Davis

Mrs. Johnston

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 7). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5919

Mr. Stupich –– 5920

Mr. Davis –– 5920

Mr. Lank –– 5921

Mr. Williams –– 5921

Mr. Cocke –– 5921

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5921

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 12). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5922

Mr. Stupich –– 5923

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5923

Hotel Room Tax Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 13). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5923

Mr. Stupich –– 5924

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5924

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I'd like to welcome to our galleries this afternoon three teachers from Delta: Mr. Doug Neale, Ken Peneff and Steve Hanson.

MR. SKELLY: I would like the House to welcome the president of the BCTF, Pat Clarke, vice-president Elsie McMurphy, and all of those teachers in the gallery today who do such a great job for education in B.C.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: In attendance today from Chilliwack and Agassiz are Doug Steinson, Ted Westlin, Bob Tunbridge and Alan Legg: teachers all. Please make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Royal City we have two teachers: the president of the teachers' association in New Westminster, George Hawksworth, and the past president, Tom Westwater. Would you please welcome them.

HON. A. FRASER: From the Cariboo — where everything really started in British Columbia — I'd like to introduce Kerry Heywood, the president of the Quesnel Teachers' Association, and Rick Cash, a member of the association. They are from School District 28. I'd also like to introduce Wayne Rodier, a member of the bargaining committee for the Cariboo-Chilcotin Teachers' Association from School District 27. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: Also with us today are two teachers from Trail School District 11: Harry Popoff of Trail, Floyd Smith of Rossland, and from School District 9 Castlegar, Mike Rodgers of Winlaw, B.C., and Rik Hall of Castlegar. I'd like the House to welcome them to this chamber, and I hope we show them how we do things here.

HON. MR. PELTON: From the Dewdney constituency, and particularly from School District 75, from the Mission District Teachers' Association, we have Mr. Phil Rathjen and Mr. Mike Trask. From School District 42 and the Maple Ridge Teachers' Association we have Drusilla Wilson and Gordon Brown. I would appreciate the House making them all welcome.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, we've got some great teachers in Burnaby, and seven of them are here today: Richard Hoover, our president; Patti Jukes; Gordon Smith; Marion Runcie; Dave Carter and his wife, Nancy Carter; and Gordon Blair. We're lucky in Burnaby, and we want you all to welcome them.

MR. VEITCH: I had an interesting meeting in the government caucus with a group of educators this morning, and I think that after an interesting beginning we got down to some good, constructive dialogue. They are Andy Krawczyk, president of the North Van Teachers' Association; Warren Hicks from North Van; Sheila Pither from Vancouver; Maureen Ciarniello from West Van — she's a president up there; Gordon Blair from Burnaby; Moira MacKenzie from Surrey; Dave Carter from Burnaby; Brian Porter from Surrey; Richard Hoover, who is the president of the BTA in Burnaby; Patti Jukes from Burnaby; Gordon Smith from Burnaby; Tom Westwater from New Westminster; George Hawksworth from New Westminster; Alan Crawford from Vancouver; and Don Briard from Vancouver. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to greet and welcome all the teachers from Vancouver. I haven't got their names, because while I missed the Expo party last night, I went to school — Sir Guy Carleton — where they had a very excellent festival.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's the first time you've missed a party in years.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and I missed that champagne. I'd have had trouble developing a champagne taste.

I greet the Vancouver teachers, who are the best teachers in the province, in Canada, in the world.

MR. KEMPF: I take exception to the member saying the best teachers in the province are in Vancouver, because from the north, from that breadbasket of British Columbia, we have from School District 54, Smithers, Mr. Richard Miller and Mr. Michael Scales, and from School District 55, Burns Lake, Mr. Greg Schneider and Mr. Jim Camps. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. MacWILLIAM: From the jewel of the Okanagan, the town of Vernon, I'd like the House to welcome the president of the Vernon Teachers' Association in School District 22, Mr. Ken Robson, who is accompanied by another one of my colleagues and a VTA worker, Mr. Horst Giese. From the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke I'd like the House to welcome Mr. John Kooistra, Mr. John Pavelich, Mr. Mike Holoiday and Frank Manning. Also, would the House welcome Lyle Levasseur and John Tan from Armstrong, and Bill MacFarlane from Revelstoke.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker in a slightly different vein, I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming to the world Paul and Troy Davidson, twin boys born yesterday to my daughter Patty and her husband Glen.

MR. ROSE: I too would like to welcome the delegations of teachers here today. My own district 43 is headed by Gordon Wickerson, and other teachers from the same delegation, plus Tom Hutchison of the BCTF I'd also like to give a generous welcome to any other teachers from anywhere who haven't been introduced.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have Brian Porter, president of the Surrey Teachers' Association, along with Moira MacKenzie. also representing the Surrey Teachers' Association. In the precincts we have 90 students representing Matheson Junior Secondary School in Surrey, and visitors from Gloucester High in Ottawa. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not every day that the member for Nelson-Creston gets to introduce someone down here, but today it's my pleasure to introduce a former student of mine

[ Page 5900 ]

who is now president of the Nelson District Teachers' Association, Mrs. Laura Jacobs, who is accompanied by Margaret Bonser from the Nelson District Teachers' Association. Also, this afternoon I look forward to meeting with Charles Granewall from Arrow Lakes School District and from Nakusp. I wish the House would bid them welcome.

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, there are no Richmond school teachers here today; they are working in the classroom.

I wonder if we could acknowledge a very significant event. Our erstwhile Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) yesterday became the grandfather of identical twin boys.

MR. STUPICH: On behalf of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), I would like the House to welcome two teachers from Lake Cowichan — Elsie Langeler and Eric Lundberg — and one teacher from Cowichan District Teachers' Association, David Denyer.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon is Sue Kenney, president of the Cranbrook Teachers' Association, and Jim Hunt. They're accompanied by Mr. Chris Johns, a teacher from Cranbrook. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MS. SANFORD: There are two teachers here today from two separate school districts within the constituency of Comox. I would like to introduce Walter Bergmann from School District 69, Qualicum, and David Page from School District 71, Courtenay. Make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Also in the gallery today are teachers from Merritt, Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Hope and Lillooet, representing four of the six school districts in my riding. Would the House please welcome Harry Little, Norm Walker, Dan Strachan, Everett Krider, Dave Gory, Don Walmsley and Balwant Sanghera.

MR. PASSARELL: From School District 87 we have two teachers: Kees Van Der Pol from Cassiar and Susan Henderson from Dease Lake; from School District 92, Nishga, Ravi Gill; on behalf of the Premier, from School District 23, an old chum of mine from Notre Dame University, which this government handled so well, Greg Howard.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are a bunch of students from my riding. This group is from North Island Secondary School in Port McNeill. They are grade 11 students accompanied by their teachers, Pat and Kathy Parker.

Also in the gallery today are representatives of teachers in several school districts in North Island, who are here to make sure that collective bargaining is given to teachers like everybody else: Linda Werklund from Vancouver Island West; Michael Kuss and Walter Driscoll from Vancouver Island North; and Don Bozman from Campbell River.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, there are several teachers here today from the great constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, and I ask the House to bid them welcome. I look forward to meeting with them later on this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, could the Chair remind members that they have an obligation to assist Hansard in whatever way possible with the spelling of their guests' names.

MR. LAUK: I rise under standing order 16, Mr. Speaker the question of division bells. I wonder if Mr. Speaker can advise whether division bells ring in either of two places: the Premier's office and the Expo site in the city of Vancouver.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, on numerous occasions the Chair and the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre have had an opportunity to discuss this from various points of view, the result always being the same. In this case there will be no difference.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGETS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, in the unexcused absence of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I'd like to direct my question to his stand-in. It's our understanding that five school boards in the province — Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Courtenay and Cowichan — have submitted budgets which do not comply with provincial orders. Will the minister confirm that five districts have refused compliance, and will the minister also advise what action he has decided to take with respect to those districts?

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Education I am very happy to receive that question and tell you that he's out there working on that now, and he'll bring his answer back very soon.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Education is attending a directors' meeting of B.C. Rail. I'm wondering what type of solution the minister hopes to achieve with respect to school districts in the province of British Columbia at a B.C. Rail executive meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. member?

MR. SKELLY: It's been suggested recently, and some school districts are concerned, that if they refuse to comply the government will go to court and have orders issued against those school boards, so that if they continue to refuse to comply they will be in contempt of court. Will the Attorney-General advise if a decision has been made with respect to obtaining court orders against those school districts?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member seeking a legal opinion?

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's not just division bells that have been ringing too long in that member's ears.

I would like to assure the members of the House that the government considers that all school boards, like all other public authorities in this province, have an obligation to obey the law; and if that law is the public schools act of British

[ Page 5901 ]

Columbia, then their firm obligation, regardless of their conscientious beliefs, regardless of their adherence to doctrine, is to obey the law. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that courses of action are being considered, and that we will not permit anyone in this province, school boards or others, to flout the law.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Attorney-General. We now have three laws; I name them quickly. We have binding arbitration, under the School Act; we have Mr. Peck issuing binding orders; we have Mr. Curtis, under the administration act. Has the Attorney-General ever received an opinion that sending out contradictory signals of that kind creates dismay, demoralization and confusion in the school system?

HON. MR. SMITH: I would have thought that the member would have agreed with me that one law that is not difficult to understand or difficult to read is the section of the School Act that requires a budget to be submitted, in accordance with the regulations and laws of this province, by a certain date in each calendar year. He knows that.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General this: since the minister has promised a legislative solution to the confusion and the problems created by three contradictory laws, when does he expect this legislative solution to be revealed?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the Attorney-General whether he's expressing the attitude of the rule of law with respect to the doctors of this province, who signed a contract with the Ministry of Health that is now abrogated by Bill 50? Is this the kind of obedience to the law that the Attorney-General has in mind for the teachers of the province?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, that is a somewhat ingenious, artful leap by the member for Vancouver Centre, because he well knows that one of the functions of the Legislature is to change the law. If a court decision....

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I may be old-fashioned, but I....

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: A smear on my Teutonic ancestry.

Mr. Speaker, if the chief justice of British Columbia interprets one of our statutes as not allowing a course of regulation, and we introduce a bill seeking to remedy that deficiency, it seems to me we're in the highest spirit of the rule of law, not contrary to rule of law, and that is what the parliamentary process is about.

EDUCATION POLICY

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister who is replying for the Minister of Education a question. Since the Minister of Education has been forced by his government into an inflexible position where the operation of the schools is in real jeopardy and the education of students is at risk, what action has the minister decided to take to keep the schools open and operating?

MR. VEITCH: As I stated before, the Minister of Education will return and that information will be coming in due course and very soon.

MR. ROSE: On a supplementary, the Heinrich policy of ultimatums and deadlines has proved to be a failure....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Education's policy.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, I'll get to it. Just wait for it. I'll be there pretty soon.

Has the minister decided to ask the government to declare a truce in the political war so that students can be assured of continuing their education — de-escalating this time bomb? No?

MR. VEITCH: I believe the truce in that political war as far as education is concerned could begin right here in this chamber. We'd be a lot better off if we had a lot less political rhetoric from the opposition and a little more constructive dialogue. I had a meeting in the government caucus today with certain members of the educational fraternity, and I believe they're willing to dialogue. They're not there for political reasons. I would suggest it's time to get on with education in this province and not political dialogue.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver board and other boards have already indicated that they would be willing to compromise, but there is only compromise being offered on one side so far. Is the parliamentary secretary indicating that the government is willing to compromise and discuss this matter with the various boards? Because so far, in the case of Coquitlam, he has refused to meet the board.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has spent an extensive amount of time going from board to board around this province and working many long hours dialoguing with people about education. All you have to do is look at the budget of this province to see the priority that we put on education; it's one of the great items that we have on our budget. The Minister of Education will be dealing with this, and we're working at all times to improve the educational scene in this province. I suggest that would happen if there's a lot less political rhetoric and a little more dialogue from the members in this House, and more constructive thought.

MANNING PARK SALE

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Last year the government sold the assets of Manning Park, which have a value of $20 million, for $500,000 to a private consortium. Can the minister tell this House if the full $500,000 was paid in that sale?

[2:30]

[ Page 5902 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Just to be absolutely sure, Mr. Speaker, I'll check to see the actual transaction. I do recall the figures that the member mentioned in approximate terms, but I can get you that answer to that question as to whether the $500,000 was actually delivered.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports in the local press in the Manning Park area.... There is a report that the company that purchased that $20 million asset is flipping it by reselling it to another company. Can the minister tell if there is anything in the agreement for the sale and lease which prevents the owners from flipping this property to new owners?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As the member, I think, already knows, I do not necessarily accept the press reports as gospel, so I'd like to get some confirmation on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I have some reason to doubt.... As far as the flipping goes, the arrangement was with the ministry and the participant. I would be very surprised, although I'd have to check in detail or get some legal person to check it, if there's any opportunity for that person to move that to anyone else without our authorization.

MR. MITCHELL: In view of the importance of this matter, has the minister decided to table in the House the agreement for sale and the lease agreements respecting this particular sale?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, a final supplement to the minister. Was it the decision of this government to sell this asset for $500,000 to pay for the half-million dollar booze-up they had for Expo yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

OKANAGAN BINGO OPERATIONS

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Provincial Secretary — under the B, for bingo or Bennett. Kevin Capozzi of the Dabbers chain of bingo palaces in the Okanagan has said his operation will bring in $3 million to $4 million a year, with only 25 percent going to charity. What action has the minister taken to restore the non-profit charitable purpose for bingo operations throughout the province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not aware that Mr. Capozzi is in the bingo business.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You should watch the news, Mr. Minister.

According to Mr. Capozzi's statement, his operation will skim somewhere between $2 million and $3 million a year in bingo proceeds, with the blessing of the government. This money would otherwise go for charitable purposes. Why has the minister decided to allow this organized commercial gambling — and that's what it is — to take place in the guise of charitable fund-raising?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Dabbers bingo parlour in Kelowna does not hold a licence to operate a bingo. The licence-holders are non-profit organizations and charitable organizations. The operation in Kelowna is no different from the Nanaimo operation controlled by the NDP, which is the largest organization of bingo in all of British Columbia — two floors with a seating capacity of 700 people — and collects about $185,000 a year on renting their premises to charitable and non-profit organizations. Actually they're in the business of leasing space when they're not operating a bingo themselves — one of the four NDP groups in Nanaimo. The only difference between the Dabbers in Kelowna and the NDP operation in Nanaimo is the fact that the Dabbers is not in the bingo operation business like the NDP is in Nanaimo; they merely lease or rent space from their building to nonprofit and charitable organizations.

Presenting Petitions

MS. SANFORD: I have a petition addressed to the hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in legislature assembled. The petition of the undersigned, the people of School District 71 of the constituency of Comox, states that:

"In this time of hard choices, the priority must be given to the future, to the children. Let all sides be governed by this principle. Let the provincial government maintain the present 1984 funding level as the minimum level of expenditure until we determine the future direction of public education. Let the local school board make the most efficient and responsible use of these funds to meet the needs of students. Let the teachers teach without unnecessary stress imposed, but with continued sensitivity. And finally, let the parents and students be involved in the hard choices and future direction of our schools.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House give priority to the future — that is, to the children — by ensuring that all children have the opportunity for quality education."

I submit this petition on behalf of my constituents.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody has advised the Chair that he has a standing order 35 to bring forward.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the matter is the democratic and orderly operation of the provincial school system, and in particular the maintenance of education to the children of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Courtenay and Cowichan — 21 percent of all the children in British Columbia's public schools, or 100,000 young people. Since midnight the government has been formally in dispute with the locally elected school trustees of those districts, which now lack legal means of raising money to pay their bills.

As this House well knows, lack of supply funding is the most important problem that could face any elected legislature. The interests of those children need to be considered front and centre. Whatever your analysis of how the dispute arose, both sides of this House will probably agree that it needs to be settled very quickly. Accordingly, I seek leave to

[ Page 5903 ]

make the motion for the adjournment of the House that makes a positive suggestion for resolving the impasse.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House, mindful of the benefits which flow from democratic and orderly operation of the public school system, and in particular the need to maintain education for 100,000 children of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Courtenay and Cowichan, respectfully request the hon. Premier of British Columbia to visit the B.C. Schools Trustees' Association convention, currently at the Hotel Vancouver, and negotiate an honourable settlement of the government's dispute with the locally elected school trustees of those districts.

MR. SPEAKER: Without prejudice to the member's case, the Chair will undertake to review it with a response to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Segarty tabled the 1984 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the 1983-84 annual report of British Columbia Transit.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $214,384.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Human Resources moved adjournment, so I was under the impression that she had something more to say, and I was waiting to hear from her, which is the reason I was not on my feet when that vote was called.

I had prepared quite a detailed response to the minister's introduction of her estimates, but I am not going to use it, because when I realized that this minister was a party to and actively involved in the spending of $500,000 for a cocktail party, Mr. Chairman, at a time when there are 200,000 people in this province — men, women and children — in receipt of income assistance, I was so outraged that I decided that I had to start off by asking the Minister of Human Resources how she could violate her mandate in such a manner.

Mr. Speaker, that $500,000 could have fed 2,000 income recipients for 13 months. I don't know if you know it or not, Mr. Chairman, but on income assistance, research has shown that after all other expenses have been paid the recipient has something in the neighbourhood of $100 to live on for a month. That works out to something like $3.33 a day for a child or an adult. And this minister spends $500,000 to buy champagne and to pay for hors d'oeuvres — to celebrate a very important occasion; there isn't any question about it. I think the opening of Expo is important, but I cannot understand why it had to be done in such an extravagant manner.

There are 1,000 children in this province who were deprived of the services of family support workers when that minister cut the program because it was too expensive. Those children could have been serviced, because the salaries of the family support workers to serve those children for a year would have come to exactly $500,000. Those are the kinds of alternatives which were facing this minister when she made the decision to blow $500,000 on champagne and hors d'oeuvres rather than to feed the children of British Columbia and see that they were well served.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the vote before us now is vote 42, the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, and during estimates debate the committee must be reminded that only debate that relates to the administrative responsibilities of that ministry is allowed. There will be other opportunities, I'm sure, to discuss the matter that the member is currently engaged in, but they are not with us at present. We are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources, and none other.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Human Resources is responsible for the family support program — which could have served 1,000 children — which was cut to save $500,000 which that minister blew on cocktails last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not appropriate, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I am relating to this minister's responsibility. The Minister of Human Resources is responsible for the income assistance program, which, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, doles out something in the neighbourhood of $3.33 a day to people in receipt of income assistance, which means that 2,000 of those people could have been fed for 13 months with the $500,000 which was blown on cocktails and hors d'oeuvres last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And once again the member is out of order in drawing in debate that would be better discussed during another minister's estimates.

MR. SKELLY: This is the minister responsible for poverty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The government is responsible for the funds dispensed to all ministries. When one points out that there is a lack of funds by virtue of the fact that the government has spent money elsewhere, I believe that that's quite in keeping with this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Your point of order cannot be accepted. The Committee of Supply is responsible to the Legislative Assembly for discussing the administrative responsibilities of the minister whose estimates are before us. The current estimates before us are for the Minister of Human Resources. Inasmuch as activities and administrative responsibilities are covered by that ministry, we can discuss them. If it's an expense or administrative responsibility of another ministry, it is out of order. I'm sure all hon. members can understand that. I will pursue it further if the committee wishes.

[2:45]

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to point out that for the past two years we have heard speaker after speaker on the government side justify slashing all sorts of programs in this province on the

[ Page 5904 ]

basis of what they claimed was the government's inability to pay. That's exactly what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is talking about: the government's ability to pay half a million bucks for booze.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That may be an intriguing argument, hon. member, but it is also out of order and not appropriate. We are discussing, as I said earlier, the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources. The debate must be relevant to the expenditures and the administrative responsibilities of that ministry. There will be ample opportunity, I am sure, during other estimates to discuss other expenditures, but at this point the Committee of Supply is discussing vote 42, and we must restrict our debate and our comments to that ministry and that vote. Thank you.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, under the family and children's legislation, that minister's mandate is to act on behalf of the safety and well-being of the children in her responsibility. It says: "...shall be of paramount consideration." I put to you that it is not of paramount consideration to cut $500,000 from your budget and deprive 1,000 children of the kind of care they need so that the government can have $500,000 to blow on champagne and hors d'oeuvres. She is not disposing of her mandate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, as a point of order, I would like to have the House know, in relation to the statement that was just made, that this ministry has had an increase this year in its budget, not a cut of $500,000. And the $500,000 referred to is from a paper clipping, where $500,000 to promote jobs for people in this province is very clearly a good expense of the government of British Columbia. In this past 49 hours there has been an expenditure which has brought the international press....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:...which will bring some 50,000 jobs...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:...to this province, and $3 billion to the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll advise the minister that the minister is currently entering into the same debate that the Chair has found to be out of order, and that is discussing an expenditure or an administrative responsibility not within the purview of the minister whose estimates are before us. So that we can maybe have a moment to consider this, I'll remind all committee members of standing order 43, which advises us of irrelevance and repetition in debate:

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of that member's own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct that member to discontinue speaking and, if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall follow the procedures in Standing Orders 19 and 20."

With that, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds continues on vote 42.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to your attention, and to the minister's attention, that the sums in the budget for services to families and children have been cut by $2 million. Two million dollars have been cut from funds to be spent on children in this province, but $500,000 can be found for other things. I'm not interested in being thrown out or punished by you, Mr. Chairman, because I have a number of things that have to be said. One of the things that has to be said is that you do not take $2 million away from children and then turn around and find $500,000 to spend on other things. That has to be said.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I've lost count of the number of times we've heard that specific statement. I would suggest that according to the standing orders, the member should be called to order. I don't know how many times it's going to be allowed to happen, but I would think that we should stick with the subject at hand. I would ask your assistance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure that all members of the committee will maintain relevant debate, and we will discuss the business that's been presented to us by the House. We will discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources and be relevant to that topic, and to the administrative responsibilities of that minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in February of this year 236,977 people were in receipt of income assistance from this government. I may have repeated the misuse of government funds more than once, but there are 236,977 people who are hurting as a direct result of this government's misuse of funds. I don't think it can ever become repetitious or irrelevant to raise that matter on the floor of this House.

This ministry insists that the recipients of income assistance in some areas utilize the services of the food banks. This is not a Third World country. We are not a poor nation, we are not a poor province, yet food banks in this province have more customers.... The food banks in Victoria, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, North Vancouver cannot meet the needs of the people who need their services. At the same time as that is happening, this government is finding money — and I know what's going to happen if I say it, so I'm not going to say it — not to meet the needs of hungry people, not to meet the needs of children in need, not to meet the need to wipe out the food banks, but to meet needs which, if there was any way possible for me to raise them on the floor of the House at this time, I would, because those are disgraceful needs that this government finds money to meet.

MS. SANFORD: Would that be for fancy beverages?

MS. BROWN: Something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hors d'oeuvres?

MS. BROWN: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess the problem the committee is having is that we are not struck to discuss the expenditures of the government; that's done quite abundantly and adequately

[ Page 5905 ]

during the budget debates. We are here to discuss the spending and the administrative estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources only.

MS. BROWN: And that's what I'm confining myself to: the fact that $2 million has been sucked out of the budget to serve children and families in this province; the fact that people in receipt of income assistance.... I don't think we say this often enough — that when a single person under the age of 24 first goes on income assistance in this province, they have $200 a month to meet their needs after shelter has been paid for. It has been estimated that after they pay transportation, Hydro and their other expenses, there is something like $100 left — $3.33. Do you know what I found out when I tried to figure out what it would be like to try to feed myself on $3.33? The only way in which it was possible to do that would be if I were eating in the legislative dining room every day. The reality of the situation is that nobody, but nobody, can eat on $3.33. That is the reason why, in a month like we're going through now, which has more Wednesdays in it.... Imagine that. In a wealthy province like this people have to count how many Wednesdays there are in a month to decide whether they're going to starve or not. I would appreciate an intervening speaker.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First, in response to the question of sufficiency, I'd like to quote from a survey that was taken not in this province but by the social planning council in metropolitan Toronto. They took a look at all provincial jurisdictions; they did an interprovincial comparison of welfare benefits, and also a household-type comparison. It's appropriate in today's discussion because it's dated 1984. It's appropriate because it points out....

The member who has just taken her seat has constantly referred to the after-shelter income of single persons. It's interesting to note that British Columbia is not the least; it is not the second least; nor is it even the third least in benefits. It is interesting to note that the people who are the worst in the country in terms of providing income assistance benefits for single persons.... That was the particular area of interest that the member has been concentrating on: after-shelter income comparable to the province of British Columbia, in terms of its standard of living. In Ontario it's $61; in Quebec it's nothing.

I'm going to give you the amount of money that a single person receives in Quebec for income assistance. In Manitoba it's $103 — interesting; that's an NDP jurisdiction. In comparison, as the member has quoted, after-shelter income in the province of British Columbia is $115. It's interesting that the member doesn't make any comment about the NDP province of Manitoba, which is so very much less. Let me just give you again the figures by province for the single person on social assistance. This is the monthly benefit for a 25-year-old employable single person. We're talking about long-term employable people who are single and 25 years of age. Let me quote the figures for a province comparable to ours, with a standard of living quite like ours. Ontario's is $346 for their singles. It's interesting to note that Manitoba, the NDP province in this nation, is $338. Quebec is $154. British Columbia is higher than all three of them at $375. If the member wishes to make comparisons across the nation, we can make comparisons. We can also tell the truth about what the benefits are across this nation.

I want to give you another comparison, because I think it is important. Families are perhaps the greatest concern, because families are those people who are not mobile, who cannot go from one job to another, who cannot go from one town to another to seek out a job. It's interesting to note that the monthly benefits for families on social assistance — say one adult with one child that would be a single parent with a child.... A long-term case in the province of Manitoba receives $562 a month; in the province of British Columbia, $640 a month. It's interesting that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds did not make those comparisons.

[3:00]

If you look at other models across this nation, British Columbia provides exceptionally well for those who are in need. As the member makes those kinds of comments, I'd be very glad to bring out the income assistance comparisons that I have at hand. I'd like you to know, for example, that we spend.... The member has referred to $2 million being underspent in family and children's services. That's absolutely incorrect. I'd like to say that it's also knowingly incorrect, because the member asked a question on the floor of this House during this session, and I gave her the answer some weeks ago. There's no excuse, when the answer was given directly to this member, that on the floor of this House today she should accuse this ministry of having a cutback in family and children's services.

As a matter of fact. we have in the foster care program an increase in rates for 4,000 foster parents which come under that particular vote for services and families, an increase of $700,000. We have an increase of contracted services. The reason that the child-in-care program decreased one year over the other — and it was well explained to this member in a past question — is that there are fewer children coming into care. The demographic changes are such that it has affected the workload — the child-in-care caseload. Underspending is primarily in foster maintenance payments and contracted resources, because there are fewer children coming into care. Even with politics aside and the difference in philosophies represented in this House, surely all sides of the House would applaud that.

There was also a transfer to the rehabilitation services, again explained to this member in an earlier response to a question, which made the $400,000 in our vote transfer to the rehabilitation services. Mr. Chairman, instead of a decrease in the overall vote for services for families and children, we have a net increase in that vote of $2 million.

I would like to respond to the other question which this member brings up. She refers to food banks. All of us in this House have always been supportive of the voluntary sector at all times, whether or not it's an affluent time in this province. When that side of the House was government in this province, there were people who were providing food for people in need, clothing for people in need. Don't tell us there were not, because there were, and I know those voluntary organizations who did just that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! All members will be allowed to take their place in debate. One at a time, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We applaud the efforts of the people such as the Salvation Army who have been outstanding, in this province and in this nation, in their care for the

[ Page 5906 ]

needy over many years and many areas. They have voluntarily given of themselves to provide help in time of need. I would also like to note that very many times in the past few months I have been asked about food banks. There is no control over the food or the dispensing of the food or the clothing in any of the voluntary organizations; some of them don't have any control at all. And that's quite all right; there's nothing wrong with that. If they don't choose to do so, that's the voluntary nature of the work. But on behalf of the taxpayers of this province we have to have accountability, and may I say that what this province does in terms of that kind of budget is monumental. Beyond $900 million will be spent this year to assist those who are in need. So please don't try to make the case that because there are food banks in the province the province is not responding properly to those in need. Nine hundred million dollars is a very dramatic response indeed.

So, Mr. Chairman, may I say again: we can make comparisons from one minister to another on expenditures, but this Ministry of Human Resources is there in time of need for those who need help, and we do not close our door or in any way refuse people help when they need help.

May I say too, in closing my response to the member who has just taken her place, that I would like to introduce — because he was not with me in the introduction that I made in starting these estimates two days ago — my deputy minister, Mr. John Noble; and assisting from our finance department of the Ministry of Human Resources is Jim Deas.

MR. SKELLY: The minister seems to delight in making comparisons between this province and Manitoba, and then to say she's doing it on a non-political basis. If you're willing to get into those comparisons on a broader basis I'm willing to do that as well. I'd like you to compare the unemployment rate in Manitoba with the unemployment rate here in British Columbia. I'd like you to compare the effort by the government of Manitoba to create employment for their citizens compared to the measly effort here in British Columbia. The reason why we have a problem with the Ministry of Human Resources — in fact, with the whole government — is that this government has made serious economic blunders that have driven people into poverty in the first place.

I hear the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) sitting in the back seat there, carping away about the comparisons between Manitoba and British Columbia. I'm pleased to stand beside those comparisons; I'm pleased to make those comparisons. Manitoba is doing an excellent job in managing its economy under an NDP government. Yes, when you analyze the differences between allocations to individuals under their human resources budget, there may be some differences, but there are also differences in the cost of living in those provinces, British Columbia and Manitoba. So let's see the whole comparison.

Let's analyze the whole effort that Manitoba is making to get its citizens off the welfare rolls, to get its citizens back to work, because, Mr. Chairman, the best incomes policy is an incomes policy that allows people to work, allows people to work in dignity and allows people to contribute to the wealth of this province and to the wealth of Canada as a whole. That's the object of the government of Manitoba: not simply to provide a pittance to people who are forced onto welfare for reasons of their own, but to get those people back into the job market and producing again.

This is why we have some concern about this particular Minister of Human Resources. This is why we have some concern about this particular government, because they do not appear to be doing that. In fact they're going in precisely the opposite direction. I was just reading a letter to the editor that was written by the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bennett, back in 1974, when he was talking about 80,000 people being out of work in British Columbia. There are now more than 80,000 people out of work in the Vancouver region alone. There are more than 80,000 people out of work in the lower mainland area outside of Vancouver.

There are 240,000 people out of work in British Columbia, according to Stats Can. And we know from Stats Can's own figures that they underestimate — understate — the number of unemployed by about 50 percent. That would mean 300,000 people out of work in British Columbia, and they were complaining back in 1974 about 80,000 people being out of work. Yes, we were concerned about that too. If you want to make some comparisons, you make comparisons between the number of people who were out of work back in 1974 and 1975, and the number of people who are out of work now, after the application of Social Credit draconian policies to the economy of the province of British Columbia.

There was a Ministry of Human Resources budget in total in 1975 of less than half a billion dollars — $444 million. Now the budget for the Ministry of Human Resources is $1.5 billion — not because they've enriched the payments to people, not because they've improved on the quality and availability of services to people under this budget, but because they've created so many poor people in this province as a result of their policies that it's costing the taxpayers of British Columbia millions upon millions upon millions of dollars — mostly borrowed money — to pay the welfare bill.

That's the comparison that we would like to strike in this debate, Mr. Chairman. That's the comparison that the people of British Columbia should be looking at when they're trying to determine the effectiveness and the ability of this minister: the fact that when the current government took office, less than half a billion dollars was being paid out in welfare payments in this province for the whole Ministry of Human Resources budget. Today a billion and a half dollars is being paid out to maintain that huge welfare drain on the B.C. economy that was created by this minister and her colleagues in that cabinet. That's the problem in British Columbia right now.

I think we could enrich the payments that are made to people on welfare, the people who must be on social assistance because they have no other choice. We could do that. But we could only do that if we had a party in government today that was committed to getting people in British Columbia back to work, back to producing wealth, back to working in dignity and contributing to the economy of this province and to the economy of Canada. But that minister there does not have that kind of commitment. That minister right there does not have that kind of commitment. That's the problem we're dealing with here in British Columbia today. That's why we're dealing with a budget that's $1.5 billion.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This government loves to talk about the biggest and the best in British Columbia: "Supernatural B.C."; "the biggest world's fair in history"; the number of countries that are coming to Expo....

[ Page 5907 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SKELLY: I agree. We think that Expo's a very positive thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's about time.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, if you check back in the Hansard of this Legislature, you will find that every step along the way that legislation was supported.

[Interruption.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Leader....

MR. SKELLY: Am I debating with somebody in the gallery, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you are....

[Interruption.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Sergeant.... Would you please sit for a moment till they clear the gallery.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Leader of the Opposition continue. You appreciate that we are on vote 42, the Ministry of Human Resources, and not that of other ministers at this moment.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to introduce the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. Segarty's) sister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. SKELLY: We can make comparisons between Manitoba and British Columbia. We can make comparisons between what happened in this province in 1974 and 1975 and what's happening in this province now. A minister must be judged, as to her effectiveness in performing her mandate, on what's happening in the province right now.

The simple fact is that there are more people on welfare and on social assistance in British Columbia right now than there ever have been at any time in the past — an historically high number of people on welfare. We're paying out more for social assistance and for services under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources than we've ever paid out at any time in the past, and this budget is becoming a horrendous burden on the taxpayers of British Columbia.

What we should be doing in British Columbia is developing programs that get these people back to work — those who are able to work. We should be getting these people back to work so that the economy is producing again, is developing the kind of wealth again, and is tapping our natural resources that we can use to convert those natural resources into revenues for the province which can contribute to making the livelihoods of people who must be on welfare and on social assistance a little better than they can currently be because of the strapped economic position of the government.

Mr. Chairman. as far as I'm concerned, this minister has been a complete and utter failure in fulfilling her responsibilities as Minister of Human Resources. To tell you the truth, Mr. Chairman, I don't think her heart's in it. I don't think she really down deep cares about it. I think her major concern is all of that glitter and all of that publicity that's attached to those big projects like Expo and like ALRT. That's what she really likes. She can't really bring herself to be concerned about the need for people in British Columbia to be employed again.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You can't have one without the other.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, the lady who sits in the back and who comes from Surrey says you can't have one without the other. We know that Expo is going to create 50,000 jobs for six months, and we welcome any jobs in this province at this point. But as I pointed out, Mr. Chairman, when we're dealing with the problem of 100,000 people unemployed in the city of Vancouver alone, another more than 100,000 people unemployed in the lower mainland area alone and thousands upon thousands of unemployed around the province and in my own constituency, we wonder exactly what impact this is going to have. We know it's only going to be for a six-month period.

[3:15]

When we took at the big booze party that was held in Vancouver at a cost of half a million dollars, ostensibly to introduce journalists to Expo, we wonder if those kinds of expenditures by this government are legitimate, even to promote Expo. Expo has the possibility of being....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, we are on the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources, under vote 42. My understanding is that Expo is not part of her administration or her estimates. If you would be relevant to vote 42 and the administration of the Minister of Human Resources, I'm sure the House would appreciate it.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Chairman, was talking about the food banks and the fact that we have long lines of people waiting for food at these food banks. Every Wednesday, people in Vancouver go to the food bank in downtown Vancouver, and the line-ups are blocks long of people needing food. Now she says that she gives the volunteers who run the food bank a pat on the back, but says that they're not careful enough. They don't screen people enough. How can volunteers conduct a means test of people who come to the food banks for food?

Mr. Chairman, we know that Expo is going to take place in this province in May of 1986. What do we want to show to the people of the world who come here seeking to invest, seeking to locate industry here and seeking to travel here again? Do we want to show them over 200,000 people receiving social assistance? Are we going to be proud of that? Do we want to show them long lines at the food bank? Is that the kind of thing we're going to be proud of and display to people who come here from all over the world to Expo?

Or do we want to be proud of a different kind of British Columbia, a more positive British Columbia, a British Columbia whose government has as its objective getting people back into productive long-term employment again and getting people contributing in a positive and a dignified way to

[ Page 5908 ]

the economy of this province? Do we want to show those people who come to Expo a more positive, vibrant economy that is going to thrive and contribute to the wealth of this country over the long-term? Because of this minister's failure to follow through in her mandate as the Minister of Human Resources, I don't think that we're going to have those kinds of positive things to show to the people of this world. This is what we're concerned about in this particular minister's administration.

This minister should be called the Minister of Poverty, because the one thing that's happened under her term as Minister of Human Resources is that more and more people in British Columbia have become poor. More and more people in British Columbia rely on government handouts rather than their own energy and ability and talent to produce the kind of wealth that they would like to produce for this province.

More and more people, Mr. Chairman, have been humiliated by this government and by this minister, and I'm ashamed for this minister. I think she's done a terrible job. I don't think she deserves the salary that's being paid to her under this section of the budget.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I thought the minister might have something to say in response.

I'd like to try to add something to the discussion, if I may, Mr. Chairman, particularly with respect to the income assistance programs. I listened the day before yesterday to the minister explain the workings of her ministry and the way in which the staff try to help people who are receiving assistance payments of one kind or another. It sounded exactly the way a Ministry of Human Resources should be operating, as though they were trying to get people away from the program, as though they were trying to reduce the number of caseloads rather than simply looking after the ones that are receiving assistance.

I can recall a former Minister of Human Resources in the province of British Columbia, a former Social Credit minister prior to 1972, standing up and boasting each year about the number of people he was able to get off welfare rolls and get back into some meaningful role in society. I questioned the figures at the time, but I thought then, too, that at least he was trying to do the right thing in getting people back as useful members in society. Not that society needed it, but they themselves, as individuals, needed to feel that they were useful. If they were going to contribute, if they were going to really belong to the human race, they had to feel that they had some meaningful role in the community. Getting them off welfare and getting them back into being working members of society seemed to be the right way to go.

I listened to the minister tell us what's going on right now. But, Mr. Chairman, I need a little more evidence that that really is going on right now, because the evidence that I see suggests to me that that is not what is happening at all. It suggests to me simply that people who come in and ask for assistance are simply being treated as groups of people who are begging. They are shuffled through the system just as quickly as they possibly can — either individually or as they turn up in line. They line up and wait for some kind of attention. They are then asked to sit down and wait some more. They come back and they wait some more at a counter, and they are really made to feel that they're begging from the public purse when they appear at these Human Resources or welfare offices.

Mr. Chairman, the budget for GAIN programs for the year ended March 31, 1984, was $776 million, and that was after part of the infamous July 7, 1983, budget. The amount for the GAIN program is $776 million. In the budget for the year ending March 31, 1986, the figure has gone up by 19 percent, up to $921 million. We know, Mr. Chairman, in that period, that people have not experienced an increase of any kind in the amount of dollars they're getting. So obviously — even if we didn't have figures to prove it — it's because of an increase in the caseload. Rather than have people going off welfare — and certainly there is some circulation — the caseload in this same period, from 1983 to 1985, has gone up by 20 percent. The dollars have gone up by 25 percent, and the caseload has gone up by 20 percent on these figures.

What about the people who are looking after all of these individuals who are coming and asking for help? And they're not just asking for handouts, Mr. Chairman; they're asking for help. They need help because of what the government has done to them. Because of the way in which the government has managed the economy in the province of British Columbia, in particular for the last three years, more and more people are coming to the government and asking for help.

What about the help that they are getting? Mr. Chairman, for the year ended March 31, 1984, when we approved the expenditures for this ministry, we were told that the number of employees to be hired would be 5,443. In the budget before us now, the figure dealing with 25 percent more dollars than was awarded then, and with a caseload 20 percent higher, the number of people involved in dealing with the people who are coming and asking for help has decreased by 18 percent — down to 4,464.

1 ask you, Mr. Chairman, how can 18 percent fewer staff deal with 20 percent more people? And those people — most of them — have never had to ask for that kind of assistance before. You and I as members must have had coming to our constituency offices people who have never had to come to the government and ask for any help. They need help now. As I say, Mr. Chairman, the government pushed them into that position, and instead of getting help from the government they are being asked to line up and wait while 18 percent fewer staff members are dealing with 20 percent more people coming and asking for help. How can that be?

When the minister spoke two days ago in the House, she told us how the department was working, how it should have been working, and told us of the help they should be giving to people. In almost every area except the GAIN programs — the amount being paid out — the budget has been cut. There have been nominal increases in some small programs, but in total there has been a substantial reduction in the budget.

But, Mr. Chairman, that's only part of it. The figure provided for GAIN programs in the budget that we're discussing right now and that the minister is asking approval for today is not really a forecast of what the ministry is going to have to pay out for GAIN programs in the year we're now in. It's simply a reflection of what's happened in the past year. As the budget itself points out, the figure is just 2.3 percent higher than the amount estimated to be spent in the year ending March 31, 1985. Now, with an increasing number.... Month by month the figure goes up; month by month the economy gets worse; month by month more people are running out of unemployment insurance. More and more people have to go to the government and ask for help, yet the ministry is providing for an increase of only 2.3 percent, with no increase in allowances for individuals.

[ Page 5909 ]

There are many different ways that the government could get the economy moving again, but certainly one of them should be to put more money in the pockets of the people, who will certainly spend it as soon as they get it.

One of the ways in which the government has hurt the economy has been to lay off — and to threaten with layoff — some 75,000 people in the province. That's just employees of government, Crown corporations and various Crown institutions, municipalities and school boards. They threatened 75,000 people with being laid off, and they laid off many of those. In this one ministry they experienced a reduction in staff of 18 percent in a two-year period. All of those people have gone — where, Mr. Chairman? Many of them have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. Some of them are still on; more are exhausting them as month by month goes by. They too will no longer have the money to spend to keep the economy going in their own communities, let alone the service that they used to give, let alone the services that the minister told us about on Tuesday — the services that these people are giving to those who are asking for assistance in the various Human Resources offices throughout the community.

Mr. Chairman, increases in allowances for people living below any calculation of a poverty line is money that would be spent in their communities immediately. It's money that would help the small business enterprises in their communities immediately. It's money that would be circulating and making people feet a little more confident about the future in British Columbia. Some of these people have perhaps been on assistance all of their lives; some of them, unfortunately, perhaps for generations. But my main concern right now is for the increasing number of people who are having to fall back on that last resort for the first time in their lives. Think of the psychological effect on them once they get caught in that trap. The longer they're receiving Human Resources assistance payments — GAIN payments — of any kind, the more likely they are to go on receiving them. Something has to be done to break that cycle.

If they were given an allowance that was a reasonable amount of money, they would then have an opportunity once again to take part in what's going on in the community, to get out, to try to do something for themselves. As it is, they're given simply enough to exist on, not enough to live in a way that would make them feel they have some chance of escaping from that kind of life, some chance of once again entering into the main economic stream of life in their communities and in our province.

Mr. Chairman, I have all kinds of material and can make a case, I believe, for a significant increase in the amount being paid to recipients of GAIN payments. I would like the minister to respond to this, without my going into all that detail, and tell me what her attitude is toward the amount now being paid, an amount that has not increased over a three-year period and that in some instances has decreased; amounts that I feel should have more than kept up to the cost of living. Because times have been so bad, the need is greater to make that increasing number of people feel they have some role to play.

[3:30]

Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to respond, perhaps with some kind of evidence to the effect that her ministry staff, having been reduced by 25 percent, is able to cope with the increasing number of people who are coming every day and asking for assistance.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, may I just respond to the Leader of the Opposition and then to the member for Nanaimo. First, there was a fair amount of time spent by the Leader of the Opposition — and understandably so, because I mentioned the rates in the province of Manitoba as compared to those here in the province of British Columbia.... I thought it important to mention — with his tremendous accolades for the Manitoba NDP government — that he should really be aware of the Winnipeg Free Press of just a few weeks ago, all to do with the ministry of social services there in the province of Manitoba. An article from March 30, for example — "Day Care Boost Called Inadequate" — says: "'...The government is spending millions of dollars on advertising campaigns and hundreds of thousands of dollars on salaries for political aides,' noting the money could be better spent on programs for children."

Another Winnipeg Free Press comment: "Social Programs Fail to Reach the People in Need." This was written by a former member of the B.C. press gallery, Frances Russell. I'll quote just a bit of the article:

"Manitoba has four assistance programs which employ needs or means tests, and which require prospective recipients to apply. Many of the so-called 'deserving' poor are unwilling to undergo the humiliation of exposing their lives to a government bureaucrat. Also, often the neediest in society are least likely to be informed on the help available."

Again from the Winnipeg Free Press comes the headline: "NDP A Reverse Robin Hood." "Schroeder is accused of taking from the poor and giving to the rich." Here's another quote from this: "But while the program talks about the progress it is making in creating employment, the number of welfare recipients has jumped."

Mr. Chairman, I'll just respond in a general way now to the whole idea of income assistance increasing in the province of British Columbia, and also to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I think the member for Nanaimo is truly sincere in his questioning regarding income assistance recipients. I think he shares our real concern to make sure that the people most in need are the ones who will receive any benefits from the government. I also believe that he wants to see them out of that cycle of welfare. He is absolutely correct in some cases, but not in all. In some cases the repetition of welfare month after month and year after year almost guarantees, if it is a very long time, that that family will be in that income assistance caseload, income assistance space, even into further generations. I understand that. I know he understands that.

What he doesn't understand, what is woefully misunderstood in this province — and, as I found out at a recent federal-provincial conference of social services ministers, woefully misunderstood in this nation — is that people do not stay on income assistance in this province, or in the provinces of Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, and across this nation, or, indeed, particularly in this province.... We understand the income assistance caseload. It is not understood in most jurisdictions.

The people of British Columbia use welfare, income assistance, benefits, whatever you want to call them, as they were meant to be used. There are exceptions, and there always will be exceptions to any rule. But let me just say that people in British Columbia use welfare as it was meant to be used: to assist them in a downturn. In this last recession there has been a downturn in the economy, and they have used

[ Page 5910 ]

welfare to assist them over that time. Therefore there are more people on welfare. There are more people on welfare in Manitoba and there are more people on welfare in Ontario — there are more people on welfare across this nation. British Columbia isn't any different when a world recession hits this nation.

Let me say this. B.C. alone stood out, some five years ago, in identifying the caseload and the movement of people in and out of that caseload. We understand what we are dealing with. We have a professional staff who have identified that caseload so that we do know that people use the income assistance for a very short time.

So when the member for Nanaimo talks about people on the income assistance caseload for a very long time, I want to implore this House at least to understand, if we can't make the rest of the nation understand.... I have to say there's a bit of a breakthrough there, since the federal-provincial conference. I would really like our House to understand that in this province people use it for a very short time. Today there would be more than 6,500 people enrolled in the Individual Opportunity Plan. But even without the Individual Opportunity Plan, before they become eligible for the plan or the job action program, they will, on their own, be off income assistance. Fifty percent of the people who come on income assistance today will be off income assistance anywhere between three months and eight months from now — on their very own. They don't stay on the caseload. Fifty percent of the rest of them are off in the following four months. They do not stay on the caseload. They are not the same people. They are not a group that you can address in one sweeping statement and say they are there all the time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I will quote from the Wall Street Journal. This is a 1984 publication. It is interesting that some two and a half years before this was ever printed, this great breakthrough, which they are saying is an explosive policy, was discovered by the state of Michigan a very long time after it was discovered and implemented in terms of addressing the poor here in the province of British Columbia. Let me just quote from what the Michigan group found explosive. From 1971 to 1978, about 52 percent of the families who started off in the top bracket of income shifted to a lower bracket. All of those who started in the lowest bracket shifted and moved up so that their lot increased and they moved up. Many escaped poverty within not seven years, as was acknowledged earlier in a given for the state of Michigan, but a few months. This is the operative sentence: "Only a little over one-half of the individuals living in poverty in one year are found to be poor in the next year."

I think it's very important for our people in this House at least to understand that, so you understand what we are doing in order to give a better way of life to those who come to us on income assistance. This province alone has led the nation in innovative ways. We are looked on across this country as having the most innovative ways of bringing people out of income assistance and into independence. Along with any other province there's no comparison; none whatsoever.

I mentioned that we have two programs. I wish the member for Nanaimo would even go with me to see one in particular, the job action program. Some 300 people a month are going through the job action program, which absolutely dramatically turns around their lives. Another almost 7,000 people.... In September of last year there were 7,253 people, and it averages around 6,800, 6,500, 7,000, 7,200 people each and every month that after they cannot get themselves off income assistance, we do not leave them in that long-term situation. They are able to get themselves off within that eight months, and after that we put them onto an Individual Opportunity Plan; and I'm going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is succeeding. They are getting into independence through the Individual Opportunity Plan, through the job action program. The member for Nanaimo cries for programs and initiatives to do just that. They are here now, and they've been in place for a very long time.

Experience shows that regardless of what the limit or how you extend income assistance, and it's a very separate manner.... He asked the question: what is adequate? It will be different things to different people. But regardless of the limits, it is in response to the business cycle that we have income assistance caseloads. That's what it's in response to. We are now coming out of the recession; we are hoping the caseload is going to diminish. If everything goes as history has dictated, of course that will be the case.

You see, the members of the NDP can't say on the one hand that we are not doing enough for income assistance recipients and then on the other hand say that we are spending too much on income assistance. That's the exact argument that the Leader of the Opposition gave today.

Please look into the Individual Opportunity Plan and the job action program. They are initiatives that aren't seen anywhere else in this country, and they are working for individuals in this province.

MR. STUPICH: The minister quotes from the Wall Street Journal. I'd like to quote from the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. paper. It is an organization that I think is more appropriate to the province of British Columbia right now than is the Wall Street Journal. I've said it; now I'll read it: "British Columbians are on welfare or UIC." That's the situation. I don't know whether the minister is personally aware of the number of people who are destitute. I don't know whether the minister has ever had an opportunity to visit a food bank lineup or a soup kitchen. I've done that, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure whether you have, but I know they exist in your community. I know they exist in every major centre in the province of British Columbia. I know they have not existed in the province of British Columbia for 50 years, so this is something new for B.C.

I don't recall the minister saying anything in her response that would lead me to think there was going to be any change, except that she now thinks we're into a recovery period. Well, the budget didn't really indicate that to me, Mr. Chairman. There's nothing in the budget that would reflect, as I see it, any increase in the economy of the province of British Columbia. There is a modest increase in government revenue, but they've increased taxes to achieve that.

I have one clipping from.... I tried to make this point the humiliation of going on welfare for the first time. There's a letter to the editor in the Province of April 22, 1985. The person writing has never had to come to the government and ask for help. I'll just read this line: "I was sure it was only the lazy and the greedy who were whining and complaining about handouts being taken away." They then go on to describe the way in which that person was handled at the Ministry of Human Resources office. That's another point I was trying to make.

[ Page 5911 ]

The minister tells me of the statistics that she is compiling, showing that people are not really staying on, although the number is climbing. Although more and more people are going on welfare all the time, nevertheless they're not staying too long; there is a turnover. I certainly hope that is the case. But I have to ask again: if 25 percent less staff people are looking after 20 percent more of a caseload, and if that reduced staff is compiling statistics to make the ministry look good, then who is looking after the people who are coming in asking for help?

She did mention one program that she wants me to come and see. Well, Mr. Chairman, you and I have had experiences, I'm sure, visiting things where we have been invited to come and look. People talk about going to foreign countries, where they show you what they want you to see. I'm sure the ministry could point to programs of which the minister is proud, and which they believe are succeeding, but the facts of the matter are that more and more people are going on welfare every day. The government is taking no steps to change that. They're not providing adequate funds. The people who are going on welfare are going hungry; they're going into food bank lineups to get food; they're going to soup kitchens to get a meal. It isn' t good enough for B.C., in 1985 — a province as rich as we are — to say that we can't afford a reasonable standard of living for everyone in this community.

Whatever the reason that they're going to the Ministry of Human Resources in asking for help, they should get it. They need it, not just from people who are sitting there waiting to hand money out. I agree with that: they should be getting it from individuals who have the time and the interest to listen to the appeal being made to them, and who have an interest in trying to help that person, not simply by offering money — I agree with that — but enough money so that that person can hold his or her head high, can walk in the community and live in the community at a reasonable standard of living, and not have to go from the welfare office to the food bank lineup or from the welfare office to the soup kitchen lineup and get help there.

I'd like to quote further from the Federated Anti-Poverty Group. Here are some examples of cases from the FAPG that illustrate our problems besides the rates being too low, the caseload lengths and inadequate service. The first one: "In Vernon and Salmon Arm, the welfare office there, because it is getting so many applicants, processes them all in a group." I made that point earlier. They don't have the time. Perhaps they had the interest at one time, but they're certainly losing that, I would think, in view of the pressure on them. They don't have the time to deal with individuals as individuals.

[3:45]

Quoting further: "This means the fundamental guideline of MHR" — the minister talked about the guidelines, and with the guidelines I can agree — "...right to privacy and confidentiality is usurped, let alone the kind of service being administered." I have to keep coming back to that, Mr. Chairman. It's the level of service that concerns me — not more than, perhaps, but certainly to a large extent — along with the minimum amounts that are being paid.

Number two: "In Dawson Creek appeals take a lot longer than the required time, and in the recent past they had to go to Terrace, where the regional manager is." I'm not sure how current this is, although it's a recent paper that's come to my hands.

Number three: "We have cases of letters of protest written by MHR recipients to the ministry going to Victoria, returning to the recipient's MHR office unopened, and then being put in their file with a severe reprimand going from a worker to the recipient." There was a time when we had a problem in Nanaimo, when people going to the welfare workers thought that they were being treated unfairly. I did appeal, on behalf of my constituents, and I must say that the reaction there was positive. I have no problem with the people working in the Ministry of Human Resources office in Nanaimo or in the headquarters in Duncan or here in Victoria. My problem is with the government attitude, the government approach that we can't afford to give any more money to these people who are getting barely enough to survive. Mr. Chairman, we can borrow a billion and a half dollars to provide for northeast coal — coal that isn't needed — but we can't afford to pay a decent amount of money to people who need it to be able to hold up their heads in their community, who need it to educate their children properly, who need it to dress their children so that they will not stand out like a sore thumb when going to school, and who need it simply to live as citizens in our communities. We can afford it. We can afford it if we want to. That's what I'm asking the government. I want them to change their attitudes. I want this minister to have a change in attitude, and to agree that it is important that people have a meaningful income.

There was an experiment tried in Manitoba some years ago — before, I believe.... No, I'm not sure what government was in office at the time. But it was financed by the provincial and the federal governments. Everybody in the community was paid not the kind of income that we're now giving to people on GAIN but a reasonable income, whatever their circumstances and whatever they were doing. I don't know the end of the story; I know it was being tried, jointly funded by the province and by the federal government, and I don't know how it worked out. But it was an attempt to see whether that wouldn't benefit the whole community, and whether people getting that kind of assistance wouldn't very soon find that they didn't need it, simply because they were for a time getting a reasonable income, and found then that they were able to get it on their own.

We're not doing that in British Columbia. If there is any turnover.... The minister tells me there is; I can't say that she's wrong, because I don't know. I'm not sure that she knows. But if there is a turnover, from what she said, it's not because of any positive action on the part of government or on the part of that minister; it's simply because it's happening in spite of what the government is doing, rather than because of what the government is doing.

Mr. Chairman, the minister told us a couple of days ago about all the programs that they have in the ministry to try to help and advise people. In my experience this just isn't happening, because the staff in the offices — the staff members who are there meeting people; the front-line people, if you like — may be told by the minister in Victoria what they should be doing and how they should be helping people, but they 're faced with long lineups of people looking for help and have no time to do any more than the minimum amount and to hope that they'll go away, to hope that the problems will disappear.

Giving these people an increase in allowance would be one way of enabling them to live at a decent standard of living in their community, of enabling them to participate in their community, and of helping the communities in total by having that kind of action. We could do it if it were Tumbler Ridge. If we were to say that a certain area of land within

[ Page 5912 ]

every community in British Columbia were to be called Tumbler Ridge, we could pour money in there, and the whole community would benefit. If we were going to say that in every community there will be a minimum ALRT, the government would then spend all kinds of money in that community — giving it to the people on welfare, or whatever. Then that community would prosper. If we were going to develop a little Expo in every community in the province, money would be no object. We could get all the money we wanted for that kind of program, and that community would prosper. We wouldn't need to be paying as much out in Human Resources, because the caseload would be much less.

If the minister and her government would adopt the attitude that we must tackle this problem.... They thought we needed northeast coal; they thought we needed ALRT; they thought we needed Expo. If they can believe for one moment that having all these people receiving GAIN payments is something that we can't afford.... It's too expensive. The effect on the people involved costs us too much in the long run. If we would go out and raise the money to increase those allowances to a meaningful amount, we would not only do something for our economy — as we have done for those areas of the province where the government has decided that a massive public project is in order — and for every community in the province, but we would be doing something to return some dignity, some hope and some purpose to the lives of all of those people who are now receiving subsistence payments from the Ministry of Human Resources.

MR. DAVIS: I'd like to change the focus of the debate somewhat, to the other responsibility of the minister, that for B.C. Transit. Those of us who rode on the light rapid transit trains last night witnessed a new mode of transport for British Columbia, certainly, and indeed a new mode for Canada and the world, one which is going to sell not only in the Toronto and Vancouver areas, but in numerous other countries as the years go by.

I think we have to be proud of it for several reasons. It's Canadian technology. It's efficient. It's admittedly capital intensive, but it's the kind of public transport which many people, including most members of the New Democratic Party, have been demanding for some years. It may be ahead of its time in the Vancouver area, but a system like that will be needed increasingly as the years go by, needed certainly in the 1990s, and needed urgently by the year 2000, certainly by the year 2010, when the population in the lower mainland will be several times what it is now. It will postpone for years to come, resolve, the problem of congestion in downtown Vancouver, and indeed in the principal centres of the major municipalities in the lower mainland.

I could list a number of people who deserve some congratulations for the project. Certainly the Hon. Bill Vander Zalm, when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, had a good deal to do with launching the project. The decision then was essentially which of numerous systems should be employed. The decision, which some of us in this Legislature supported, was to use Canadian technology, then still claimed to be untried — the system under development for Toronto, with all of Ontario's experience in public transportation.

It has proven itself; it is the new system. It will be the system used to expand the TTC, the Toronto Transit Commission network, over the next several decades. It is automated; it is lightweight. It can only function efficiently if it is above or below the streets. It cannot be at grade level and involve intersections, largely because commuter time would be very much increased. Because of reduced travel time this system will appeal to many people. It will appeal increasingly as congestion grows. It will certainly appeal to those who live south of the Fraser River, when it's extended to Surrey, because it will overcome a serious bottleneck in crossing from Surrey to other municipalities to the north and east. Sooner or later it will also head toward Coquitlam — Surrey and Coquitlam being the two principal growth areas.

I mentioned Bill Vander Zalm. Another person is Kirk Foley, president and chief executive officer of Metro Canada, the Ontario government firm that has developed the hardware. Kirk Foley was born and brought up in Burnaby. He's a western export to the great metropolis of Toronto. It was in part his great enthusiasm which carried this project through to successful conclusion technically — and, I think, economically; the ideas contained in this system lead to better economics in the longer term.

Mike O'Connor was hired by our steering committee in the fall of 1981. Mike O'Connor is the project administrator and has been throughout. Mike was with Highways. He's a graduate of UBC, a British Columbian and a Canadian. He has shown that a project on this scale can be run by a Canadian like himself. Others whom our committee hired include George Flanigan, the property man; Gordon Adair, who is in charge of finances and has been throughout; Bob Egby, who came to us from ICBC — Bob has been the public relations man in recent times, and I think he has done a very effective job — and Tom Parkinson, who has been on the project throughout, and who I believe was hired when the NDP was in power.

The committee, which I was asked to chair, was formed in 1980 and really got down to work in early 1981. Along with the municipalities, their planners and engineers, it finally located the line, located the stations, and negotiated, revised and altered contracts on many occasions. We met at least monthly; sometimes we met weekly. With the exception of me, the committee was made up, interestingly enough, of mayors and, in one or two cases, aldermen. We were able, through cooperation by several levels of government, to resolve many of the outstanding problems. I think most of the right decisions were made. Obviously the system is coming in on time. Trains will soon be running from one end to the other — from downtown waterfront Vancouver to downtown New Westminster by June. Commercial service is not scheduled to begin until January 1 of next year, so there's plenty of run-in time.

[4:00]

In terms of economics the early estimates suggested something like $718 million in as-spent dollars. The current figure is in the order of $800 million. The largest single reason for the increase is provincial and federal sales taxes. There was an agreement in 1981 between the province and Ottawa that they would charge sales taxes on each other's projects, and that made it necessary to add some $60 million to the cost of the project. That was a tax decision.

The system now has capacity to carry the handicapped, which it didn't initially, and it can carry loads at least a quarter greater than those originally envisaged. With a much enhanced carrying capacity, roughly treble the original design, in capital terms we've got a system of which we can be proud for roughly $800 million.

[ Page 5913 ]

The biggest single challenge for the next couple of years is the reorganization of bus routes and the coordination of the bus system in the lower mainland with the new light rapid transit system. Together with SeaBus, the three modes will be one system. Stuart Hodgson, who 15 years ago was appointed commissioner of the Northwest Territories and previous to that had been an officer with the IWA, is the new general manager, as I'll call him, for the lower mainland. His several years with B.C. Ferries were successful ones; he certainly dealt with the labour relations problems in the B.C. Ferries effectively, and hopefully he will be able to do the same with B.C. Transit.

There are several questions which I'd like to direct to the minister in this connection. I hope that in the fullness of time — the fullness of time being the next relatively few months — Stuart Hodgson will in every way be in charge in the lower mainland: in charge of all of the public transportation in the lower mainland, including light rapid transit, buses and SeaBus. Taking over that role, he takes over a very large portion of the job that B.C. Transit has to do in this province. The lower mainland encompasses at least two-thirds of the population of the province, certainly the most congested areas.

Stuart Hodgson has that assignment. I'd like to get some feel as to where he will fit relative to the bureaucracy here in Victoria; how he will relate to Larry Miller, who has been general manager of B.C. Transit for a long time; what the headquarters function in Victoria will be once Stuart Hodgson and the other municipal area managers get their jobs in hand and well organized. In other words, is Stuart Hodgson really the boss in the lower mainland, or is he not? What's going to be his relationship with Victoria? What's Larry Miller's job after Stuart Hodgson takes over the bulk of the work managing the system?

I'd also like to ask about the B.C. Transit board. I think it's been an anomaly that the mayor of West Vancouver should be the chairman of the board of B.C. Transit. After all, West Vancouver has its own bus system; it's subsidized by B.C. Transit. On the face of it there is a conflict of interest there. I don't think Derrick Humphreys should continue as the chairman of that board; I think that an arm's-length relationship would be better. I favour individual municipalities having their own bus systems, etc., as long as there's a close physical linkage with the overall transit system. So I am not disputing the viability or the usefulness of the blue bus system on the North Shore, but merely the personalities involved.

I'm concerned about the projected extension to Surrey. The crossing over the river is necessary; it's fundamental to making the light rapid transit system economically viable in the next few years, as much as a third increase in ridership for an increase in investment, if you get across the river, of say 10 percent. I am not one of those who are convinced it should be extended beyond Scott Road up to Surrey Place, at least at this time. I think when the announcement was made a year ago, it was made for reasons which I can't fully explain. I'd like to ask the minister on what studies it was based. I personally believe that the current economics indicate that light rapid transit must be extended to Scott Road, and a second good hard look taken at the extension some four and a half kilometres up to Surrey Place costing $120 million. I'm not sure that that's money well spent. I'm not sure that it's comparable to the economics of spending a lesser amount going to Brunette in Coquitlam. I hope the government has an open mind in that area, because ridership would be enhanced by going to Scott Road in Surrey and Brunette in Coquitlam as the next phase of the project, rather than simply going on to Surrey Place; in other words, going exclusively to Surrey.

I'd like to ask the minister what Ed Sweeney's function is in Surrey. He's a PR officer there, I assume. We were able to get along without that kind of PR officer in the first phase, and I never saw him at any of the numerous meetings we had with Surrey council, planners and engineers when I had some responsibility for that project.

MR. NICOLSON: You're just against Roman Catholic Irishmen. That's your problem.

MR. DAVIS: Well. I think these are questions which relate to economy and also to the extension up to Surrey Place. I'd like an answer in that connection.

I'd like to ask whether design work is continuing on the ALRT bridge across the Fraser. That is the bottleneck at the moment; that is priority now. If it isn't proceeding, then the crossing to Surrey will be delayed a year or two. So I hope at least some funds are being made available for what I'll call the final design process for the ALRT bridge across the Fraser just downstream of the Patullo Bridge.

Beautification of the ALRT line: it certainly lends itself to not only beautification, but local parks, bike rider trails and so on. I'd like to ask whether those costs are part of the ALRT or B.C. Transit, or whether they're under another heading. I know there's a joint program with the federal government to provide jobs, and that certainly has an appeal.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, could I please refer back to the member for Nanaimo? I see he is not in his place, but for the record I would like it clearly spelled out in this House, in response to the attack that he made on the government in terms of reducing assistance for people who come to our Ministry of Human Resources office for income assistance, that he misunderstands the overview that we did. We did reduce staff, but not in those services. As a matter of fact, those services have indeed been increased. In family assistance workers and in clerical and supervisory help for that particular area, there has been an increase of 7.4 percent — from 752 to 875 people at this point. So that's an increase in staff in income assistance.

I can respond to decreases in other areas, but we said at the time we were making those decreases that the downsizing of government — which everybody, even on that side of the House, seemed to agree with — was needed to respond to the downsizing of income to government. That was done under that formula which said that we would maintain our essential services. I'm pleased to say that we have done so.

Also, I would like to point out that in the turnover.... Once again I respond to the member for Nanaimo, who said he didn't know if we knew how many people were off income assistance. Well, I'm going to tell you that we do know. We not only know how many are on but how long they stay on, and we know the turnover for each and every month. The figures are — I'm glad you asked; how nice of you to do so — that in March 1983 and March 1984, 59 percent — almost 60 percent — of the people who were on income assistance were off in four months. Six out of every ten who came to us were off income assistance in the first four months. In the following four months 73 percent were off income assistance.

[ Page 5914 ]

Therefore if we didn't catch them in the first four months, the balance, to a total of 73 percent — almost three-quarters — were off in the next four months.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

So you see, it goes back to what I said before: this is an ever-changing group of people. The ones that we put all of our efforts into — most of our efforts; I shouldn't say all, but most of our efforts — are those who are on income assistance beyond the eight months. Most of them, three-quarters of them, will find work and use income assistance as it was meant to be.

Welfare, as far as this government and this province are concerned, should not be a way of life. Welfare is meant to be temporary assistance in time of need. I also would like to put on the record, in response to the member, that we believe — in fact, we have proven it, and we have accomplished it — that our objective should be independence through working, not welfare.

I also want to say that the experiment the member referred to that took place in Manitoba took place in the province of British Columbia and in New Jersey. Those were the three jurisdictions that tried the very thing that he was referring to. He admitted that he did not know the outcome; I do, and I shared that outcome with this House before. That was where we had left more income in the hands of people. That has always been brought up, time and time again, in terms of every new minister, I think, of income assistance, social service. I came into the responsibility with that idea in mind. Along with my ministry, I did the experiment, and it didn't work. It didn't work in Manitoba, and it didn't work in New Jersey. That's why it was abandoned by all three jurisdictions. That's why when the member for Nanaimo makes that comment.... We hear it very often. I hear it from members of my own constituency.

Politics aside, people think that if you do that, that will be the panacea: just give people more money, leave more money, let them earn more, and have a sliding scale. It has been proven it doesn't work. We have done that experiment. We feel it is better to give them all of the assistance and the benefits of more education, if it's needed — a choice. The Individual Opportunity Plan is that: it's a choice for more education; it's a choice for any kind of upgrading, or day care for a single parent; it's options. It's a plan. It isn't willy-nilly throwing money at a problem; it is assisting on an individual basis, an Individual Opportunity Plan, so that that kind of independence that we wish for every British Columbian can be obtained.

[4:15]

In terms of the derision that seemed to accompany the member's remarks regarding whether or not we were providing that kind of leadership, let me just say: northeast coal, Coquihalla, reforestation programs, Expo 86 and ALRT, which the member for North Vancouver.... There are 7,500 jobs in construction alone. All of those things are assisting in jobs, jobs, jobs. That's the response to the member for Nanaimo.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has addressed another area of my responsibility. May I say that I am very pleased to have that responsibility; not because I like the circuses, which the member for Nanaimo accused me of — not at all. There is a lot of hard work in delivering a transportation service in this province, whether it's done by the Minister of Highways with his ferries and highways or through the MTOC, of which I'm proud to have responsibility, or B.C. Transit in total and the building of ALRT. You see, transportation means jobs; transportation means just that. When the member, who has had a great deal to do and chaired a committee in terms of ALRT.... I was pleased that he gave credit and some response to those people originally involved in this incredible project. I have to say, that response to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who has given hours and days and months of his time to assist us in the building of ALRT, does not go unnoticed by this side of the House, and I hope it doesn't go unnoticed by the people of British Columbia.

In response to the questions asked in regard to that, the ALRT line and the building of ALRT are probably the sleeping giant of the lower mainland in terms of economic development. Wherever transportation goes, jobs are created. The member did say that perhaps it's before its time. It certainly wasn't before its time when the decision was made, after years and years of studies by GVRD — many that were piled up and simply lying there gathering dust when this government took hold and made the decision, under the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill Vander Zalm. When the decision was made by this government to go ahead, it was not seen as before its time; it was seen to be about time, and about time it is. We have to get an answer for that kind of rush-hour traffic in the city of Vancouver and the lower mainland, and putting in more roads and more highways and more lanes of traffic is not the answer.

Mr. Chairman, I can say that it is an exceptionally important initiative. On an economic basis it's a very important initiative. There are 15 stations on that line, and each and every station is going to mean jobs for people who will be building. Apartments will be built, and commercial areas and shopping centres will be built. There are going to be fantastic creative things done in each and every area of those 15 stations.

Just compare what is going on right now at Metrotown in Burnaby, where $0.5 billion is now being built and another $0.5 billion is on the drawing board yet to come. So I can say that it is a tremendous economic initiative. We think about it as moving people from A to B; it's an economic initiative that's incredible. That's going to be a wonderful boon.

I'll tell you another thing that's going to happen. The member has mentioned the beautification program. I'd like to tell him a little more about that in terms of the cost. First of all, we would not leave any kind of a building untidy. If we were to build a building — if we were to build new parliament buildings — we certainly would take the construction work away. If we were to build a new hospital or new schools, as we've done many times over in this province, we wouldn't leave all the debris. Of course we would tidy it up.

We were lucky enough to have the old B.C. Electric and B.C. Hydro right-of-way. If we hadn't had it, just imagine what the cost of ALRT would be. But we're not going to leave it untidy; we're going to tidy it up. Yes, we had a budget to do that, and it was going to be a neat, better-than-we-found-it, tidied-up position. But we're going to go one step better than that. We're going to go a long way better than that: we are going to beautify that line so that it's going to be the most attractive transit corridor yet to be built in North America.

It will open with a running track for joggers and runners and those people who enjoy that kind of thing — a healthful participaction idea, if you like. It will open with a cycle

[ Page 5915 ]

track. Both will be paid for by the private sector, I will have you know. Moneys will be raised by the private sector so that the people of the province of British Columbia can enjoy that running track and cycle track. They will be kept separated for two-thirds of the way, so there won't be the conflict between runner and cyclist.

In addition, with the committee that was formed with the undertaking to do the beautification program, we are also getting tremendous and exciting things offered to us. That committee will self-destruct in January of next year when the line goes into being. But when it is finished with its responsibilities, it will have attracted many, many donations from very many people.

Just a week ago last Friday I was pleased to be present when British Columbia Television and the Variety Club Tent 47, of which I am a proud member, announced that they were going to build a special...

MR. VEITCH: In Burnaby-Willingdon.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, In Burnaby-Willingdon, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon does remind me.

...park on the ALRT just around Central Park. It will be a first in the lower mainland and it will be a first, I believe, in the province. It will be designed solely for the special children — the handicapped children — who will be using it. That's a very special and very attractive idea.

Besides that, we are having offers of assistance for very many things: an international mile of flags; the Italian community is building an Italian piazza, which is being designed by the renowned architect Bruno Freschi. We are having a Chinese garden built. Thankfully, the Chinese community is participating in that. There are other cultural communities of our province that are going to enhance that line and make it so attractive. I should mention that the Canadian Legion is providing a mile of brilliant red tulips which are going to be a very fine memory of their anniversary, which, of course, comes in 1986. They will plant the tulips in memory of the veterans of our province.

There are very many exciting things that are happening on that line. Yes, I have to tell you that there is participation from the federal government, which we are very pleased to receive. There was a contribution by the Minister of Immigration and Manpower, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, and a contribution on behalf of the people of Canada to enhance that line by $1.6 million, which is seeing people who are today, right as we are in this building, working on the line to make it attractive and to do the work underneath to build the park. So there is that contribution from the federal government joined with the contributions from the private sector, so it is going to be a pretty exciting and pretty beautiful looking park.

You asked, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, about Mr. Ed Sweeney. Yes, his responsibilities are for information. He is doing the role that was done during the first phase of the line, where we had people visit each and every property on the line to give information to people on the line. I am told by the members for Surrey and by people who I've talked to from Surrey that he is doing an excellent job of communications in explaining, in case people are apprehensive of where the line would go and very concerned about it. He's doing a good job on that.

Now there were other questions outstanding. I would be very pleased to answer them as I go along, but I understand my time is up.

MR. DAVIS: Just one or two other comments which may not call for an answer from the minister. First on beautification, I gather that the total budget is of the order of $5 million and that B.C. Transit's initial estimate was a third of that. The federal government has now come in with a matching amount, and the minister has organized a private sector group that probably will come up with the balance. So the line's appearance will be first-class when Expo opens.

The route, at least to New Westminster, basically is the old interurban route, and the cost to the taxpayer of land acquisition has been much less, because these lands are now owned in large part by B.C. Hydro. So the beautification is occur-ring again in large part on lands owned by the power company. There is — a question of maintenance — maintaining these parks, bicycle paths, walking paths and so on. I assume that the municipalities will take on some part of that job, but there is the question of land title and so on, which may present some difficulties. Certainly in the past it was easy to deal with Hydro along the rail line by simply installing another rail line, but it may be a little different dealing with parks and so on, when Hydro regards that land as one of its assets for future disposal of one kind or another.

I certainly hope the minister and B.C. Transit don't overlook the possibility of using some stretches, especially close to stations, for parking purposes. It may be an interim use, but nevertheless parking close to stations will be a problem except at the ends of the line in Surrey and in Coquitlam. So I hope that possibility is investigated.

The financial formula, which has now been announced and greeted with some enthusiasm by the municipalities, I think will allay many fears which were held at the local level as to impact on property taxation and on other municipal taxes. I hope the government has another look at the ceiling which still exists on the gasoline tax which can be levied at the local level. I think that the gasoline tax is probably the best one to use to supplement municipal income to meet the provincial share of costs. This applies to buses, SeaBus and light rapid transit.

The main reason I point the finger at an enhanced gasoline tax is that I'm convinced that the federal government is going to move into that area in a big way anyway. For those who read the London Economist, this won't be news, but there was a lead article under their American survey section a few months ago: "How Can President Reagan Balance his Budget Overnight?" The brief answer was to charge the same level of taxes on gasoline that the Europeans charge. In short order, this would balance the budget in the United States. Well, you can bet that that advice didn't pass unnoticed in Ottawa. If Prime Minister Mulroney and his Finance Minister Mr. Wilson intend to do anything about their budget deficit, you can be sure they're looking very closely at the taxes on liquid fuels, and particularly the tax on gasoline. So for the province to allow municipalities to raise the gasoline by another cent or two a litre will be seen as peanuts in a scenario which may involve taxes at the federal level increasing five to ten cents a litre over the next year or two.

[4:30]

Finally, Metro Canada's role. Metro Canada is the Ontario Crown corporation which basically developed the hardware and is in charge of the operations of the system until it's

[ Page 5916 ]

satisfactorily run in. I'm convinced that this is as it should be. First, it will make sure that Metro Canada, the Ontario company, is on the hook for the delivery of a properly functioning system. This should continue until all of the specifications are met. In other words, if there are glitches, if there are problems, they're the Ontario government corporation's problems and not ours. We had a great debate over this issue about a year ago, and those who wanted B.C. Transit to take over the run-in function didn't get their way. I'm glad about that. I'm sure that we're doing the right thing by having a B.C. corporation which is a subsidiary of Metro Canada carry out the run-in phase, which could extend as much as two years — that is, to 1988.

The manpower requirement is much less than it would have been had B.C. Transit begun to take over a year ago. Certainly the labour problems, which would have followed from B.C. Transit being the operating authority right away, have been much reduced. So I think the system is basically in good hands. When it's turned over to B.C. Transit to operate, it'll be right up to the specifications which were demanded five years ago when the system was first chosen. If there are any problems at all in operations, they'll be others' problems in terms of successfully honouring their deliveries.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to return to speaking about this minister's responsibility for the poor people and the disabled in this province. I'm not going to talk about Manitoba. I'm always happy to hear about Manitoba, so I hope she'll continue to read articles to me about Manitoba. I don't know if you know this, Mr. Chairman, but the very first black cowboys in this country showed up in Manitoba. So I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Manitoba as a result of that, because I didn't really know we had black cowboys until I started reading about Manitoba and discovered that.

However, I think that when she is using statistics on Manitoba, or anywhere else, it would be nice for her to at least tell us what year she's referring to. The reality of the situation is that she was reading from a table which dealt with benefits in 1983. She didn't tell us that there was a 3 percent increase on January 1, 1984, in Manitoba and another one on January 1, 1985. What we find when we compare that with the British Columbia statistics is that the statistic she read for 1983 is the same figure we're dealing with in 1985. So use statistics — tell the world that poor little Prince Edward Island pays better rates than British Columbia.... I mean, if you're going to use statistics, use them all.

MR. LAUK: They've got a lower standard of living.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

You know, don't be so selective about it. Talk about Alberta and talk about Saskatchewan, but most of all talk about the fact that there has not been an increase in the rates in this province for the last I don't know how many years.

The thing that really scares me is the minister's explanation about the people on income assistance. She says that the 236,977 people on income assistance are not the same people who were on before. There's a turnover. She says that within four months something like 73 percent of the people who are on income assistance are off and new people are on. Now that's really frightening, because that means that in March 1983 there were 196,000 people on. Well, if 73 percent of those people got off, how do you explain that by February 1984 there were 223,000 people on? That means that something in the neighbourhood of 150,000 new people went on income assistance. Now 73 percent of those people were off in four months, yet we find that by February 1985 there were 236,000 people on, which means that something in the neighbourhood of another 150,000 new people went on income assistance.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Everybody in British Columbia is headed for welfare, and that's what's really scary about what the government is doing to the economy. I'm not blaming the Minister of Human Resources for this. I'm saying that she's standing idly by while her government plunges the entire province into poverty. But I do not think that she should stand up and make excuses for the fact that her budget — which was, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed out, in 1974.... It is now close to $1 billion.

What she should admit is that her government has done a rotten job and that she has not discharged her mandate, which was to work for the defence of the people in need in this province. It is true that more and more people are getting poorer and poorer, and in the minister's own words, it's not the same people. It's new people who are becoming destitute as a direct result of this government's policies.

What we are also hearing is that the $125 a month — to cover food and other essentials — which they received as of April 1984 is the same $125 a month which they have now. I want to issue a challenge to the Minister of Human Resources. I'm willing to go along with this; I'm willing to take this challenge with her too. I want the Minister of Human Resources to live, to feed herself, on $100 a month, which means that she is going to spend $3.33 a day on food. I'm not going to ask her to go out there and figure out how she can do it. I've done the work for her.

She can, for $3.33, buy one loaf of bread for 82 cents that means your cheapest white bread, none of this fancy wholewheat business — one loaf of bread. She can get herself a little jar of margarine. She can buy one orange, one can of soup and one can of spaghetti, and that will come to $3.31. I had thought that I would throw in an orange, but we'd be over the budget by 20 cents if we use the orange. That would have to be the minister's diet for one day. In other words, for breakfast she'd have bread and margarine and water, for lunch she'd have bread and margarine and soup, and for dinner she'd have a tin of canned spaghetti and an apple. That's what you live on when you have $3.33 a day to spend on food.

I suggest that we take Sunday off and splurge at McDonald's. She could go to McDonald's and have a hotcake breakfast for 69 cents. For lunch she could have a hamburger and a small order of fries for 70 cents and 65 cents, and for dinner she could have a glass of water and a small fillet of fish. That would bring her in at $3.24, so she would save nine cents, which would contribute towards eating in the legislative dining room, say, on Monday morning, at which time she would have no breakfast, but she could have diet soup for 75 cents and a scone for 50 cents. For dinner she could have an egg sandwich.

That's the kind of diet that you can afford on $3.31 a day. I want to guarantee the minister two things. At the end of the month she will be fat, and at the end of the month she will be sick. That explains why so many people on income assistance

[ Page 5917 ]

use the health system so extensively and why so many of them are obese, because it is not humanly possible to eat a nutritional diet on $3.33 a day. Yet that is all that is allowed a person under the age of 25.

1 know that the minister knows, because she's got children just as I have, that people under the age of 25 eat a heck of a lot more than people over the age of 25. Anyone who has ever tried to feed a teenager knows that every time they open the fridge it's $3.33 going right down their gullet. Everybody knows that. Yet people in receipt of income assistance in this province have been forced to make do with that kind of budget since April 1984, if not earlier.

She explains why we have soup-kitchens and food banks. It's not a matter of choice. The minister keeps using the word "choice": if people choose to use the food bank and choose to use the soup-kitchen, this is a democracy, and that is their choice. It's not a matter of choice; it's a matter of hunger. That's what we're talking about. There are people in this province who are supposed to be helped and assisted by the Ministry of Human Resources and who are so hungry that they have to go to those food banks. That's the reason they are perturbed when the month has five Wednesdays instead of four. That's what it comes down to, and why the food banks are so concerned when the month has five Wednesdays instead of four.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I am not asking the Minister of Human Resources to subsidize the food banks. I am asking her to see to it that those unfortunate people, who number in the hundreds of thousands by her own counting, at least have a decent basic minimum income, a basic adequate income, so they can afford to at least eat properly.

It's worse than that, Mr. Chairman, because if you're under 25, you get a shelter allowance of $200 — that means your rent, your heat, your light or whatever. Now I'm trying to get the statistics for the average rent in the urban, suburban and rural areas, to find out how many people can find accommodation at $200 a month. Certainly what I am hearing in my office in Burnaby is that people are taking money away from that $125 which they are supposed to use for food and using it to subsidize their shelter costs. That's what they're saying. In addition, out of that $125 a month they are supposed to go look for a job. They're supposed to pay transportation, make phone calls and buy newspapers so that they can find a job and get off income assistance.

So when I talk about having $100 a month to spend on food, I'm talking about those people who have given up, who are not spending any money on transportation, who are not buying any newspapers to read the ads, and who are not making any telephone calls — they have given up. What they do is pay their rent and buy their loaf of bread, a little jar of margarine, one apple, a can of soup and spaghetti, and they sit tight. They sit tight until Wednesday rolls around and it's food-bank day, unless there is a soup-kitchen in their neighbourhood that they can attend. We can't justify this any more. There is absolutely no way that the Minister of Human Resources can justify this. Nor can she justify the cynicism which is evident in the ministry's increasing its budget only in terms of income assistance — not the rates, but the budget — thereby indicating that the government is deliberately budgeting for more people to go on income assistance: a conscious, deliberate decision made by this government that it's cheaper to keep people poor and on income assistance than it is to help them to find a job.

There is a decrease in services: in the budget for services for children, for rehabilitation services, for programs for the retarded, for health care and dental services, for services to seniors, for seniors' supplement, for Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters. There is an increase in the budget for income assistance — no increase in the rates, but anticipating, planning and deliberately budgeting for more people to go on income assistance. That is not the response this minister should be giving to her government's woeful failure to stimulate this economy and to create jobs. That is not the response we expect from a minister entrusted with a mandate to meet the needs of people in need in this province, more than half of them single mothers with children. It is simply budgeting to have more of them on income assistance, while less services are directed towards them.

[4:45]

The minister says the decrease in the budget for services to children and families is because fewer kids are coming into care. More kids are coming onto welfare; more kids are coming onto income assistance.

The Chairman indicates with great sorrow that my time has run out. But I would like a response from the minister, and then I'll carry on.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I had an opportunity earlier this week to visit our Human Resources office in the Whalley area. Really, I took the time to go into the office because of some of the press coverage that we have had recently in letters to the editor. It seems to me that the minister and her ministry should be congratulated, because they were aware of the fact that there was an inordinate number of people attending at that office for assistance. They're making arrangements to separate some of the functions in an attempt to address some of those concerns.

I do have a question for the minister. I would like more of an explanation on how her ministry is coping with some of the tragic circumstances that surround the apparent increase in family violence that we're hearing about lately. I specifically would like to know how they're addressing the problem of child abuse and granny abuse and wife abuse. I think it's an important area that we must all be concerned with. I don't think any of us really has all the information as to how this ministry is addressing that problem.

I would like to put in a couple of words in support of the ALRT extension to Whalley, and tell the members of the House and the minister that the office operating in my constituency under the direction of Ed Sweeney has provided an essential vehicle for input, a place where local residents can have input into the system. This was a direct result, I believe, of the confusion that surrounded the extension of the line in Vancouver. I'm pleased to say that nobody in Surrey expresses a negative comment with regard to the extension, because they've had an opportunity for the input which is obviously very essential. This is very important to my constituency. I should remind the members that it is the largest constituency in British Columbia, and it's going to assist in the renewal of two of our very old communities. I'm very much looking forward, along with the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), to that extension coming into Whalley.

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm amazed that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) isn't more positive about the ALRT service. His constituents are one of

[ Page 5918 ]

the greatest beneficiaries of that particular service. He should also realize that extending the service into Surrey will be beneficial to his community as well.

In closing, I must pose a question that really leaves me with some doubt as to the relevancy of the comments by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I'm trying to determine what was so significant about there being a black cowboy in Manitoba. Is that different from a brown cowboy or a white cowboy? What does that really have to do with the budget?

I would like to leave those questions with the minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. She was asking for more responses from Manitoba and I'm very pleased to provide her with some. It was regarding a Canadian Press story from Winnipeg, Manitoba dated January 3, 1984. I take it that the Manitoba welfare director's responses are the same today as they were then, a year and a few months ago, and I would like to repeat them for you. "Increasing welfare payments won't keep some poor people out of soup-kitchens, says Manitoba welfare director Garry Epp. Epp said provincial welfare recipients who stand in line for free food from churches and other aid agencies usually don't budget properly." That's the NDP response to food banks.

I also want to respond to the member's comments about the numbers of people on income assistance. Mr. Chairman, I have tried today — and I may even try again tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday — but quite honestly, I don't think the member for Burnaby-Edmonds wishes to have the correct answer. And if she gets it, I think she wishes to mislead and to have a different point of view, because it doesn't serve her purpose to understand that the caseload is ever-changing. Yes, there are more people on income assistance during a recession than when the province is affluent and at its best economically. Everyone has recognized the world recession — not just this province but the whole nation, if not the whole continent.

When the member tries to mislead the House by saying that there are more people, and that at one time or another everybody in British Columbia is going to be on income assistance, that is an exaggeration which she knows full well does not stand up in fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, hon. minister. The minister is not imputing that the member deliberately misled, I'm sure.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would never do that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Members may have different opinions, but to attack someone's integrity is unparliamentary. Please proceed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

But I do feel that it's important for those people who use income assistance as it should be used.... It's there as a safety net. I think if I leave nothing else with this House today, I hope to leave the fact that people do use it temporarily and are right back into the job market again.

Let me give you an example of someone in the job market. This is dated the end of 1984, and that was when things were a lot tougher than they are today. It's entitled: "Jobless Baker Finds Employment Recipe from the Vancouver Sun." I quote:

"Perseverance has paid off for formerly unemployed baker Troy Bradley, who advertised his predicament at a busy traffic intersection in Vancouver. For two days Bradley, 21, paraded at Terminal and Main while carrying a sign saying he needed a job. Now he has landed an apprentice baker's job with Save-on-Foods at the Langley store, and has also found a job for his younger brother, who was also unemployed."

Then it quotes him:

"'More than 60 people called me, including at least 20 people offering me work, ' said Bradley, who earns about $500 a week in his new job. 'Many of the people who called told me about other places they had heard where jobs were available.' He said that many of the callers were employers who told him they were unable to find people willing to work."

So I give you the experience of Mr. Bradley, 21 years of age, who made his own name public, and I just repeat it for your edification today.

Now may I please address my colleague for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) regarding her question both on transit and on family violence. First of all, may I say that the question of family violence is one in which this House has been concerned for some time. As you know, this province probably leads the nation in terms of assisting parents and children in regard to child abuse. Our Helpline for Children was a first in this nation. It has been copied by Alberta and by Ontario, and I'm pleased to tell you that there are other jurisdictions that are extremely interested in doing the same thing. We have a 24-hour line, seven days a week. Nine hundred social workers are available to investigate all reports. The whole attempt to try to overcome the incredible and tragic problem of child abuse has been done with legislation and with action from this government.

I would just like to say in regard to child abuse and spouse abuse that the whole focus seems to be on the physical assault. It seems to me that there are other forms of cruelty that are violent as well, and this certainly has to be one that has to be addressed by all. We have in this province addressed the transition house problem. In 1979-1980 there were seven transition houses in this province; today there are 30. In addition, in the smaller communities that do not have sufficient numbers to support it, we have established emergency shelters or safe homes in very many local areas where societies undertake this responsibility. So we are meeting it in many, many ways.

I would just like to make a comment about the kinds of court decisions that are made. I know that we're all a little bit conscious and concerned about making comments about those decisions. I say this in a general way, and I say it to hopefully be of help to those people who are in the absolutely incredible predicament of being fearful for their lives, as wives or spouses in a home, or children who are fearful for their lives and are threatened daily. It seems to me that when that is discovered, and when harassment of any kind or cruelty of any kind unfortunately results in death, it's time that we named — rightfully — the cause of the child's death in these cases and also the violence that goes on in the family,

[5:00]

Just recently a very tragic case rightfully said it was a child's murder — rightfully said. But how many times do we have people given the kinds of sentences like a few months

[ Page 5919 ]

for abuse of an absolutely vulnerable and powerless little child and someone else be given months in jail for a very insignificant — in relation to that crime — kind of crime. So I simply say to you — and I know of the member for Surrey's keen interest in this subject — that I really hope our words will be heard somewhere out there where those decisions are made. I hope when people are being harassed and abused, particularly little children, that surely there will be the kind of sentencing done which would be according to the crime. To ruin a child's life because of sexual, physical or mental abuse is a sad and heinous crime, and it should be directed that way by the court. To have a child murdered and to have light sentencing is inexcusable in our day and age in this province and in this nation, and it happens over and over again.

In just recent months on our continent, it was quite incredible to read of an 88-day sentence for the sexual abuse of a five-year-old child — an 88-day sentence for a child abuser of a five-year-old. That's not happening in this province but is still a dramatic example of what is happening in the attitudes of people. So therefore I would like to appeal, if I may, just generally speaking, for the kind of common sense with which we should be reacting to these kinds of crimes.

I also would like to say that in terms of spouse abuse.... We all know that that particularly is in terms of assisting women.... And yes, the other way sometimes, but mostly it's for women who are often very afraid and very fearful. We hope in this province in the next little while to put together something which will be of some assistance in terms of recognition that is even beyond what we have done. As I say, we have increased our transition houses, our safe homes, The budget for emergency shelters has been expanded from $512,000 in 1978-79 to $3.1 million in 1983-84, and there has been, of course, the initiation of the enforcement of maintenance and support orders — financial security support. That in itself will give hope to women who are in a situation and feel they can't get out because of financial reasons. So that is a very strong benefit for those kinds of people.

At the recent federal-provincial conference just last week, it was recognized by all jurisdictions across this nation that the abuse of the elderly was on the upswing and the reporting of it was on the upswing; whether or not the abuse was, certainly the reporting of it was. Therefore under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), whose responsibility falls within that area, and I, under the chairmanship of the committee on social services.... We will be addressing that in a meaningful way.

I do know that there was another question in terms of Surrey raised by the member for North Vancouve–-Seymour (Mr. Davis) — I know it is on the minds of the two members for Surrey — as to where the final route will be. As it was raised in a manner that would perhaps leave some doubt, I want you to know that when we put the first phase in in ALRT, we did it with community cooperation, and that's the only way to do it — with community cooperation. That's why the many meetings in the community with the city council, with the members involved, who have been tirelessly working in this regard for the community in which they serve.... I have to tell you that when that route is finally established, it surely will be in the place that Surrey residents want it.

Also I'd like to say, because it was raised in conjunction with the Surrey route, that yes, the design stages and the design plan for the bridging of the Fraser River are already underway, as was promised and announced in Surrey. That, of course, is underway at the present time.

I also want to respond to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.... I did not get time the last time I was on my feet to say to him that the reorganization of B.C. Transit is underway. It is very clear that a bill will be in the House to do that. As far as opportunities go for the commission's work, we would not be undertaking that work. The commissions will still be in place, as they always have been, in terms of setting fares and routes.

MS, BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think at this point the agreement is that I should move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this bill is the Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1985. It is one of a number of bills which flow from the budget which was presented to this assembly on March 15. Corporation capital tax is being phased out over a three-year period for all corporations except major banks which have their headquarters outside the province.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The first step of the phase-out will see the current $1 million exemption replaced by a deduction of $5 million for corporate taxation years ending on or after April 1, 1985. The second step will see that deduction raised to $10 million for taxation years ending on or after April 1, 1986. The final step is a repeal of the tax for corporations having taxation years ending on or after April 1, 1987.

These successively-increasing deductions will have the most immediate impact on smaller corporations, which, in the view of the government, are least able to afford the tax, while at the same time cushioning the revenue loss to the province — or the foregone revenue, if you will. The ultimate repeal of the tax is consistent with this government's objective of reducing fixed costs to business, thereby creating an economic and taxation atmosphere which will assist in the encouragement of investment in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, I should observe that straddle provisions are provided for corporations having a taxation year which does not coincide with the respective April 1, 1985, 1986 and 1987 implementation dates of the $5 million and $10 million deductions and then ultimate repeal.

Neither the $5 million nor the $10 million deductions or the repeal provisions apply to major chartered banks unless they are headquartered in the province. A bank with its headquarters outside British Columbia may qualify for the

[ Page 5920 ]

deduction or repeal by considering the location of its headquarters within the province. A significant incentive for major chartered banks to at least think about moving their headquarters to B.C. Is thus available to them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Bank of Montreal West, Mr. Member.

The bill also adds banker's acceptances into the taxation base for resident and non-resident corporations. Bankers' acceptances are debt instruments, as the House will know, which are issued by a borrowing corporation with repayment made by the borrower's bank. As a source of financing, bankers' acceptances have to some extent replaced more traditional sources — direct bank borrowing, that is — which form part of the corporation capital tax base. In order that similar types of debt-financing instruments are treated similarly for taxation purposes, bankers' acceptances will now be included in that taxation base. The inclusion of bankers' acceptances will add approximately $5 million in revenues for each year that the corporation capital tax remains in effect.

Finally, for purposes of the corporation capital tax, a group of companies having common ownership is treated as a single unit. I should explain, through the chair, that the standard by which common ownership is defined is being changed by this bill from "related corporations" to "associated corporations." I think that is a concept that is quite widely accepted by the business community for income tax purposes. The revenue effect of that particular change will be minimal, but it was raised a good number of times in the course of the tax study and economic development tour of last September, October and early November. There was concern about the related companies mode, rather than what we propose in this bill, associated companies.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 7, the Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1985.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition supports the legislation, and also supports the way in which it's being phased in over a three-year period. At least, I say that; I'm not sure that I've actually checked it out with my caucus, but I think the phasing in of a tax reduction like this is a good thing. I see that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is agreeing.

It serves a couple of purposes, and one of them is that it does give encouragement to the people paying this tax that the government is recognizing the fact that this tax should be removed and that the government has been promising to do it for a long time. The opposition has been urging the government to do it for a long time. But it is being removed, so the people paying it can take some encouragement from the fact that it's going to happen over a three-year period. On the other hand, from the point of view of government revenue, the shock isn't nearly as bad as it would be if it were all done at once. That too is good, because the people paying this are in the main, with the exemption applying to the first year, people who can afford to pay it.

Traditionally the opposition supports any move to reduce taxes. In this instance, it's one that we have been recommending for a period of time. I think it's worth remembering, though, why this tax came into being. It was imposed when the NDP administration was in office. We were trying to bring our tax system, for individuals and for corporations, as much in line with Ontario as we could. It was argued by department officials that, in trying to attract business to the province of British Columbia, our competition was really with the province of Ontario. They were the largest — behind them came Quebec. We had to say that the tax climate here was similar to what it was in Ontario. We wanted to increase the corporate tax rate. We were persuaded by ministry officials that it would look similar to Ontario if we went the same route they did and levied, instead of an increase in the corporate income tax rate, this new tax, which was already being levied in the province of Ontario. So we went that route.

With experience — the fact that it's really a tax on debt that a corporation owes rather than on income that it earns — it just didn't seem fair. Again, traditionally we have always supported the income tax method of raising government funds, whether from individuals or from corporations. So we welcome this move to finally provide for the phasing out of this tax.

[5:15]

I say that traditionally we support any move to reduce tax, because that's the way the opposition works. Yet we recognize that in the first year this proposes to increase government revenue rather than decrease it. The reduction in tax provides for an increase in government revenue of some $2 million. That's kind of good, if you can sort of get it both ways — tell the business community: "We're going to take this load off you, but in the meantime you're going to pay more tax." That's pretty clever manoeuvring, I would think, Mr. Speaker, and the minister is to be congratulated.

I wonder if he should be congratulated for even more than that. It says that there will be a reduction of $3 million in government revenue because of the phasing out of the corporate tax rate. But since the corporate capital tax is an expense when it comes to calculating taxable income, will the corporate income tax rise by approximately half of that amount? Has that been taken into account in calculating the reduction in government revenue? In other words, their expenses having been reduced by $3 million, and companies in that league probably paying corporate taxes at the rate of 50 percent, will they be actually paying another $1.5 million in corporate income tax, and will the reduction in government revenue at that level of the proposal really be $1.5 million, quite apart from the change that is being effected by this change?

The opposition supports the legislation.

MR. DAVIS: This bill is long overdue. The NDP may have had reasons for introducing it. Certainly the Social Credit Party said during three election campaigns that it would remove the tax. It's now substantially being removed. I gather that a few years back one of the reasons why the capital tax was continued was to collect statistics, current or very up-to-date statistics, on the number of companies. Presumably that argument for its retention has either disappeared or no longer has the force that it had with the bureaucracy a few years back.

I think the member for Nanaimo is right in saying that half, or some portion of that order, of the tax will be recovered through corporation income tax. Anyway, that's another reason for getting rid of it.

My main concern now is this discriminatory tax on banks that don't locate their headquarters in British Columbia. The government has talked about free-trade areas, about special

[ Page 5921 ]

economic zones, and so on. One of their prime functions is financing. I can't imagine major banks — banks of the character of the Chase Manhattan Bank in the United States, Barclays Bank in England or the Bank of Hong Kong in the Orient, and so on — moving their headquarters to British Columbia simply because we have this discriminatory law. I wonder why there is this tax on the banks. Certainly one of the service industries that British Columbia otherwise might hope to attract is money and banking, commerce-related funding of various activities. A discriminatory capital tax levied on all the banks — with a few exceptions; perhaps the Bank of B.C. is the only one — simply tends to prevent that activity coming here in a natural way. For that reason I'm critical of that element of the original legislation remaining on the law books of the province — namely, the discriminatory capital tax on banks.

MR. LAUK: The remarks of the member who just spoke cannot go unanswered. Shouldn't it be pointed out to the hon. member that chartered banks in the province of British Columbia have deposited, by way of savings and other such deposits from British Columbians, in excess of $30 billion? This paltry little tax is an indication that the government wishes the chartered banks to reflect the fact that British Columbia's savers are providing massive amounts of capital to these banks and they should be taxed as long as their head offices are not headquartered here. It seems to me ultimately reasonable.

It should also be pointed out, as my colleague from Nanaimo says, that a news release from the Minister of Finance indicates that these banks at present pay very little income tax because of special tax provisions under the federal Income Tax Act. They're paying less tax. It's not an evenhanded approach. So the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour is asking for special treatment for these chartered banks. I don't think that his remarks should be taken seriously as a criticism of the imposition of this tax on chartered banks headquartered outside the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: The oldtimers of Social Credit would be unhappy to hear those kinds of speeches, you know. Good heavens!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: Hearing support for the great Canadian banks from the Social Credit back bench! The former Premier, and others from western Canada, would have been very unhappy to see this. It's worth reflecting on, you know.

MR. LAUK: He is the Social Credit bank bench.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the.

Our Canadian banking institutions now have 40 percent of their assets outside the country. Let's reflect on that, fellow British Columbians, in terms of these huge assets, in terms of our savings being shifted around the globe and not providing the benefits they might within our country.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, isolation.

So a modest tax remaining on these institutions would do extremely well by British Columbia; it certainly is reasonable. It's one of the reasons the opposition will be supporting the bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, not only the 40 percent that's outside the country, but the additional super service that's given by our banking system, using our savings, for the multinationals within our framework.... That is one of the reasons why Canadians, who by nature and by our financial institutions and their direction are a saving group of people.... Therefore our internal and external control of our wealth has been divested through the banking system of this country.

There's a lot of truth in what those old Socreds used to say. As far as I'm concerned, I have absolutely no feeling of great warmth to that institution, and they're among friends — the trust companies are similar, and the life insurance companies are similar as well. I also feel that this is probably inadequate, but I will support it the way it is.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the several members from both sides of the House for their comments with respect to Bill 7. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed out that there is a slight blip upward because of the addition of bankers' acceptances in the initial year; that is, it will remain in place, but in the initial year we see that that pushes the remaining annual tax revenue from $93 million estimated for March 31 of this year to $95 million for March 31, 1986.

The number of taxpayers deleted through the three-year stage, or phase if you will, is quite significant. There will be about 500 corporation capital tax payers who will feel relief in the period April 1, 1985, to March 31, 1986. That number jumps to 5,100 with the $5 million deduction when it kicks in; and so it goes, with significant numbers getting down to the major chartered banks as the only ones remaining after 1987 who would be paying the corporation capital tax.

Let me say that I considered very carefully what might have been perceived to be a discriminatory move against major chartered banks headquartered outside British Columbia, beyond our boundaries. I thought about it for a good long time after the decision was taken to remove, over the three year period, corporation capital tax for all others. I don't consider it to be discriminatory; representatives of the CBA will hold a different view. Indeed, they have already expressed that, and I shall meet with them just as soon as possible to hear their views in more detail, and to counter it.

Nonetheless, I think there is perhaps — and I may be reading more into it than actually exists — a quiet recognition by those banks affected by being left in the Corporation Capital Tax Act, a quiet acceptance that perhaps they are in a category somewhat different to that which we consider normal B.C.-based undertakings: industries and large commercial firms. They see themselves in a slightly different way, and therefore I have no difficulty seeing them slightly differently. So that debate will continue.

In the event that the major banks and their association, the CBA, come to the province — to my office, to the government; whichever — with proposals which I believe to be in the best interests of the province, we'll examine them. That is not indicating in advance that if they raise enough noise I will capitulate, but if they have something that perhaps is the basis for negotiation — with respect perhaps to an international financial centre in Vancouver, with respect perhaps to some

[ Page 5922 ]

other activity — then I think we can sit down. We could discuss that once, or 12 times, and it would be the kind of consultation which I very much enjoy.

I don't have the authority, as the Minister of Finance at this particular moment, to commit the province or the provincial government forever to leave the banks in; nor would I dare commit to take them out at a particular time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Or, as the member interjects, dare to leave the rate the same. Anything can happen as this Legislature meets each year and reviews what is deemed by the government to be most appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, we'll have an opportunity to get into a couple of other details later in committee stage, but I move second reading of Bill 7.

[5:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 7, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) rose under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance; namely, the provincial school system and, more specifically, the submission of budgets as required under the School Act of the province of British Columbia.

The restrictions to a successful motion under standing order 35 are well-known to members of the House and need not be fully canvassed in detail at this time. It seems to the Chair that the matter raised by the hon. member falls squarely into the prohibition contemplated in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, page 372, where it is clearly stated that the matter proposed must involve more than the ordinary administration of the law. Based on an examination of the statement submitted by the member, it is my opinion that the member's statement does not qualify under standing order 35.

The Chair would also bring to the attention of all hon. members the specific wording of standing order 35(10)(c), which prohibits a motion from succeeding under this order if the motion revives discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.

I think all hon. members would agree with the Chair's observation that the subject of the hon. member's motion has been clearly canvassed during the past weeks, and therefore the motion must also fail under the specific provisions of our own standing orders.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those tax measures which reinforces the conviction that a number of ministers of finance will have in all parts of the country: that this job isn't always that popular.

I also recognize that this is a measure which indeed crosses party lines. I would not want to speculate as to how a free vote might go with regard to this particular measure. I don't intend to propose it.

Mr. Speaker, as members will know, this bill accomplishes four measures which were announced in the budget address of March 14. It provides for a tax increase, effective April 1, 1985, of 10 percent on cigarettes, loose tobacco and cigars.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) finds the phrase "loose tobacco" rather amusing, but it is a term which has been enshrined in our legislation for a good long time, I think — and cigars, Mr. Minister.

It clarifies the authority to make assessments against purchasers. It limits the maximum period subject to audit to six years, and that is a theme which is to be found in other tax statutes this year: to reduce the number of years for reviewing the audit or going back and auditing the books of the tax collector or taxpayer.

It provides for increased penalties and fines on July 1 at the end of the consumer taxation amnesty program, which is being dealt with elsewhere.

With respect to this first measure — that is, the increase of the tax — the bill provides for an increase on all tobacco products of 10 percent on April 1. Prior to the introduction of that measure, the tax on cigarettes ranges from 37 cents a package of 25 in Alberta to $1.49 per package of 25 in Newfoundland.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, tax, Mr. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

The 10 percent increase introduced with this bill places the tax in British Columbia at 68 cents per package of 25, which is below that of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Ontario but slightly above that in Quebec and other provinces. Of course, changes are occurring. We do not yet have the Ontario budget. We'll hear about that later.

The tax on packaged tobacco will increase from 26 cents to 28.5 cents per 25 grams or portion thereof, and from 14.5 cents to 16 cents per half-ounce or portion thereof. The tax on cigars also increases by an average of 10 percent.

I indicated that the bill clarifies the authority to make assessments against purchasers when they have failed to pay tax. The lack of authority which has been the case previously, Mr. Speaker, became evident in the course of administering the Social Service Tax Act. So this provision is being added to several of the consumer tax statutes. It is not limited to this particular one, Bill 12.

The third amendment, as I indicated, provides that the audit period in the act is six years. This theme will be found in this and other consumer statutes. It is intended to assist the business person by ensuring that the burden of record-keeping and paying assessments of tax and interest is limited to a reasonable period of time. It may not apply quite to the same

[ Page 5923 ]

extent in tobacco and cigarettes, but it certainly applies in a variety of other areas of commerce where tax is collected. It is simply not acceptable, in my view, to go back to a business person eight years after the event, let us say, and ask that all records, documents, receipts, sales and so on be provided for the taxman. So we're moving to a more reasonable time period. But in cases of wilful default or fraud there will be no limitation on the audit period.

In a related statement, the amendment to the establishment of the six-year period, the Crown will limit the time period for taking formal collection proceedings to seven years from the date the tax initially became due. This amendment will allow one additional year beyond the six-year audit period to resolve appeals, or, where required, to take formal collection proceedings.

The final group of amendments provides for increased penalties and fines on and after July 1, 1985. That is the effective date of the end of the consumer tax amnesty program, which is to be found in other statutes before us at this session. In recent years there has been an increase in the incidence of tax evasion. The amnesty program is allowing time for individuals and businesses to put their affairs in order, and the increased penalties and fines after that date will ensure that this very important component of the province's revenue base is protected. I will speak about that at greater length when that measure is called.

Mr. Speaker, this deals then with increase in tobacco taxes. I commend the legislation to members of the Legislative Assembly. I move second reading of Bill 12.

MR. STUPICH: I'm going to support the legislation. What my colleagues do is up to them. I have some doubts about my own position on it.

MS. BROWN: That's democracy, right?

MR. STUPICH: Well, yes. If the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) were in his seat when we voted, I feel fairly certain that he would vote the other way. But he would probably feel more strongly about his position than I feel about mine.

I was wondering whether the minister would provide any justification for this particular increase. He didn't, except by implication; that is, that it's going to bring in some more money and he knows how to spend it. I suppose that's the only reason one can have for doing this. Sometimes people increasing this tax like to say, well, the people who smoke are costing our society a lot of money and this is one way of getting some of it back. But we all know that that's just an excuse for raising money. The government needs an extra $15 million, and it's going to the people who smoke to get it. There's nothing progressive about the rate of taxation. It is a regressive tax, and on that basis really should be opposed. It is costing far more than $15 million extra each year.

To my mind, more and more research proves that it's not only the people who smoke; the people who smoke indirectly are suffering from those who do. I may say that personally I resent it very much when I get on an airplane and find that all the non-smoking seats are filled, or that somebody sitting in a non-smoking Section is smoking. In the apartment block in which I live when I'm in Victoria, there are signs about a Victoria bylaw prohibiting smoking in elevators and corridors. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we don't do something so that that applies to the corridor outside this chamber. I would like to see it a no-smoking area so that when we're walking in and out of the chamber we don't have to walk through clouds of tobacco smoke.

[5:45]

Mr. Speaker, that's not part of the legislation, and I shouldn't be talking about it. I support it because I can suggest — and will as time goes on — all kinds of ways in which the minister should be spending that money, and much more than that. But let's recognize it for what it is: in the past five years this government has increased the rate of taxation from this source by 184 percent. The only source of revenue for the government that has increased at a greater rate has been the water licence fee imposed on all of us, directly or indirectly. I will vote for the legislation, Mr. Speaker. I will leave it to my colleagues how they vote.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo correctly indicated that this is simply a bill to increase the tax on cigarettes, packaged tobacco, loose tobacco and cigars. He is correct when he identifies that it represents, in the fiscal year in which we are now operating, about $15 million, some $15.5 million in 1986-87, and an estimated $16 million in 1987-88.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that this is one year.... There have been others, but this is one year in particular, bearing in mind that British Columbia's budget was one of the first, if not the first.... I think it was the second budget to be introduced in this calendar year. I notice that a number of other provinces have introduced significant hikes in tobacco tax. I offer no moral reason as to why it should be increased or decreased. The member for Nanaimo did not. It is a revenue source in a year when a number of revenue sources have been reduced and when I have consciously cut taxes in other areas, and this is therefore to be seen as something of a balance between the forgone revenue and increased revenue. It is nothing more than that — an increase on the tax of tobacco and cigarettes, and I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 12, Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

HOTEL ROOM TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to Bill 13, the Hotel Room Tax Amendment Act, this bill also relates to one of the main thrusts in the budget address of March 14, when I announced administrative and enforcement changes to be introduced in this and other consumer tax statutes. The bill contains amendments which limit the maximum period subject to audit to six years, and provides for increased penalties and fines on and after July 1, 1985, at the end of the amnesty program.

It also contains one consequential amendment arising from repeat of another statute. That consequential amendment arises from repeal of the Sale of Goods in Bulk Act as part of the Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985. Reference to the Sale of Goods in Bulk Act regarding the definition of a sale in bulk is deleted, and the definition is enacted within the

[ Page 5924 ]

Hotel Room Tax Act. This definition, Mr. Speaker, establishes the circumstances in which a hotel operator must obtain a certificate that states that all hotel room tax collected from his customers has been remitted to the government.

The first administrative amendment in this bill ensures that the audit period is limited to six years — I have spoken about that on a previous bill today — and now the Crown is limiting the time period for taking formal collection proceedings to seven years from the date the tax initially became due. The amendment, therefore, allows one additional year beyond the, six-year audit period to resolve appeals or, where required, to take formal collection proceedings. Then, to speak again about the increased penalties and fines on or after July 1, 1985, this is quite clearly appropriate within the ambit of the tax amnesty program which is now under way.

These are simply — and I know the word may occasionally be overused — housekeeping amendments. They are consequential, if you will, providing for the common administrative provisions introduced in this and other consumer tax statutes. Therefore I move second reading of Bill 13.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the opposition will support this legislation. Certainly we recognize the need for establishing the limit on the audit period. Also, with respect to penalties, if people are deliberately breaking the law they should be prepared to pay the cost.

We were opposed to the legislation when it was first introduced and still are opposed. We can see no justification for a hotel room tax in a province that depends so much upon tourist revenue. We would like to see the whole tax repealed, but that's not the point before us at this time. It's a matter of improving the legislation that we have. We're opposed to the legislation, but it's not as bad as it was, and this legislation does improve it a little. So we support this particular bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Hotel Room Tax Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.