[ Page 5979 ]

CONTENTS

Travel Agents Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 5979

Oral Questions

School trustee firings. Mr. Rose –– 5979

Mr. Lauk

Newsprint mill. Mr. Williams –– 5980

Vehicle inspection stations. Mrs. Dailly –– 5981

Tabling Documents –– 5981

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

On vote 42: minister's office –– 5981

Mr. Williams

Mr. Davis

Mr. Rose

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Cocke

Appendix –– 6004

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming five young people from Richmond, the board of directors of the Richmond Young Socreds: Mary Ferguson, Evan Stinson, Dean Armstrong, Donna Ruth and Kent Armstrong.

HON. MR. PELTON: Visiting us in the House today are some friends from Calgary, Alberta. I would ask the House to welcome Stan and Muriel McCormack.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wonder if the House would welcome four constituents from Fort St. John who are present in the gallery today: Mr. Ken Cheesman, Bob Lemieux, Jim Inglis and Henry Litzenberger.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In the precincts today are 17 students and their five chaperones who traveled here by bus all the way from Bella Coola. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. VEITCH: In the gallery this afternoon are two people from Calgary: Miss Robin Butler and Mr. Rene Vandervelde of Korite minerals company, and I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, please welcome Little Red today, and do everything in your power to make me look good, will you?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to make welcome a group of students, accompanied by Jan Denny, who are visiting the precincts today.

Introduction of Bills

TRAVEL AGENTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Travel Agents Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time. In making the introduction, Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that this bill authorizes a loan from consolidated revenue to cover outstanding claims by travelers who are out of pocket as a result of the recent failures of two large travel firms in the province. I want to stress that this is an emergency measure only and that travel agents and wholesalers will be expected to repay the loan from future regular contributions that they make to the travel agents assurance fund at this time. The bill is designed to ensure that consumers receive the financial protection to which they are entitled under the Travel Agents Act.

Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: I apologize for my lateness.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the hon. member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser), I would like to introduce, from both our ridings, Henry and Mary Novak and Mr. Blair Mayes.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL TRUSTEE FIRINGS

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to direct my question to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who's not present today. He may be out firing a few more school boards, for all I know. But I'd like to direct it then to his parliamentary secretary.

A couple of months ago political guru Pat Kinsella told SFU students that he had to create a tough-guy image for the Premier in order to win the last election. I wanted to know from the Minister of Education: was his recent action against Vancouver School Board part of a Kinsella-type strategy to mislead the public once again that the Socreds are tough and decisive?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with the greatest of respect, that question would have some difficulty qualifying under any of the items that the member was responsible for writing the rules on.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I know we can't argue about the various points of procedure here and I'll take your guidance in the spirit in which it was given.

I'd like to ask a supplementary. Under the various laws passed by the Legislature, the minister had ample authority to fix the operating budgets of any school district in the province, without going into this business of terminating the trustees. Why didn't the minister use this authority to strike a budget for the Vancouver School District rather than engage in the moral squalor of firing all the elected trustees, even those who agreed with him?

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that it would be a lot better if this member and other members spent their time trying to resolve the problem, rather than throwing gasoline on the fire. I will take that question as notice for the hon. minister and he will report back.

MR. ROSE: I disagree with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the board from Burnaby, which he represents, has asked repeatedly to meet with the minister and been refused.

The citizens of British Columbia and people all across the country know that the minister fired the Vancouver School Board because they didn't vote the right way. All Canada knows that the government cannot live with local authorities who do not vote the party line. I'd like to ask how the minister can justify defying the spirit of our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms by ordering freely elected officials to vote against their own consciences.

[ Page 5980 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. Was the Attorney-General's office consulted by the Minister of Education before order-in-council No. 850 was drafted, and did the Minister of Education receive a legal opinion as to whether or not within the four corners of the statute the power was available to the government to pass order-in-council No. 850?

HON. MR. SMITH: I assume that order-in-council No. 850 is the order-in-council that discharged the school board and put in a public trustee. The answer to that question I would have to bring back, because I haven't personal knowledge of any opinion being given. I have no doubt, though, that officials of my ministry were consulted by the Ministry of Education throughout this entire process — because there has been a good deal of contact, so there probably was at the official level — but I'm not personally aware of it.

MR. LAUK: I received a legal opinion which I was to put to the minister. Would the minister take it into consideration that the section under which 850 was purported to have been passed is an order-in-counciI section that must under the circumstances and in accordance with statutory interpretation be read to allow the cabinet to pass orders-in-council vis-a-vis the powers of the statute? The only powers allowing for a trustee appointment are section 289, allowing for the appointment of a trustee in the face of bankruptcy or failure to pay a debenture, or sections 78 and 79, where new boundaries and districts have been drafted and old boards of trustees can be set aside. Those are the only two powers of the statute allowing for the appointment of a trustee, yet the government purported to set aside the school board under section 15(1) of the School Act. Can the Attorney-General advise whether or not it is the opinion of the Attorney-General's department that order-in-council 850 is valid?

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly, hon. member, whether you are seeking a legal opinion or bringing a legal opinion and asking confirmation, the results are the same.

MR. LAUK: Could I ask the Attorney-General to consider the legal opinion which I have received in the face of any legal opinion in the previous answer that he was going to bring back to the House.

HON. MR. SMITH: It is an interesting opinion, but I notice that section 15 very clearly says:

"Without limiting the generality of section 14, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may...appoint an official trustee to hold office in a school district during pleasure and to exercise in that district the powers and duties otherwise vested in the board by or under this Act, and may fix his remuneration."

I point out that section to the member, but I'll consider his comments. There may be many opinions, but in the face of the statute there appears to be clear power to appoint an official trustee, and to grant that trustee all the powers that a board would hold in relation to school matters in the district.

[2:15]

MR. LAUK: I didn't want to bore the House with the other part of the legal opinion I have received. I didn't ask the Attorney-General to interpret section 15; I asked him whether or not he had a legal opinion available. The point is that the opinion I have received is based on the maxim delegatus non potest delegare. One cannot delegate from the statute any more power than the Legislature has chosen to put within the statute, and section 15, as I understand it, is an order-in-counciI section. It doesn't matter whether or not it says "not without limiting the generality of the foregoing."

HON. MR. SMITH: I will certainly take into account the opinion that he received from that Latin constituent, and I will endeavour to bring an answer back to him.

NEWSPRINT MILL

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it was announced in the press on the weekend that a major new newsprint mill will be built 100 kilometres south of the border, creating many jobs and 700 construction jobs. My question to the Premier is: has any attempt been made to meet with the principals involved and to these jobs in British Columbia, which would be of some significance in these difficult economic times?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Taking the question as notice for the minister, I can assure the member that discussions have taken place on a continuing basis with a number of proponents in the forest industry, in processing, in pulp and into further manufacturing. One recently took place in my office, where we were trying to encourage investment in the province of British Columbia. Whether the ministry has dealt with that specific company dealing in the United States, I have to take as notice, because I can't give you an answer on that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The prime company involved as owner is Canadian Pacific Railway — Canadian Pacific Enterprises — and, of course, they are major owners and operators in British Columbia. I wonder if the Premier might take into consideration the fact that 58 percent of our newsprint machinery in British Columbia is pre-1950 and is becoming most uncompetitive. Will the Premier attempt to meet with Canadian Pacific with respect to these questions, since they are major holders of forest lands in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, for the different parts of the member's question: number one, I'm quite aware of the modernization that needed to take place in the forest industry and that was not taking place before we became government. We encouraged major reinvestment. It took place in Powell River. A number of companies announced major plans for retooling and putting in new machinery. That's a matter of record. What has happened is that many of them did not complete those plans, quite frankly — plans that extended into the recessionary period, when international markets fell for forest products in all forms.

Yes, it is important that our industry be encouraged to reinvest. For that they need a stable political and economic climate, and one in which they know the government will not be a government that seeks to impose onerous taxation, thereby removing their ability to finance. I would say the recent budget of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has given them that type of assurance by removing front-end costing over a three-year period. That has substantial economic benefit and encouragement for not only the forest

[ Page 5981 ]

industry but also small business — and all business in the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplementary. Has the Premier read the recent study by Prof. Nilsson of Stockholm, who says that at the very minimum we must spend $35 billion over the next 15 years just to begin to catch up with Scandinavia? That would be $2 billion a year. This mill in Washington state would be a modest beginning in moving towards the $2 billion a year that we need in British Columbia to do the job that has long been undone — a decade under this administration.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In responding to that, I am as aware as anyone that we do need continued investment in the province. One of the deterrents is the threat of a government unfriendly to business, which keeps much industry from making long-term investment. However, they have great confidence in this government's policies, and in the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance, which were probably the most positive set of measures that could have been introduced, at a time in which we're trying to lower the cost of government for business and industry so that they can carry on with the job. It has been a myth, fostered by many people, that somehow they were the enemies of society and must pay higher and higher taxes. That myth is to the detriment of investment and jobs in this province. Our government is committed to affordable taxation. Our government is committed to welcoming investment from Canada, British Columbia and abroad. Our government is committed to providing a continuing stable economic and political climate, and in order to do that we have to deal from time to time with that opposition over there.

MR. WILLIAMS: I suppose the proof of the pudding is there. The CPR has judged this government over ten years and made the decision: they're going to Washington state;they're not going to British Columbia. The unstable government we've got right now in British Columbia is under this man.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is to ask questions. There are other forums for debate and for making statements. In response to the statement, the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I don't need any advice on instability from the second member for Vancouver East — he invented it. If you want to talk about stability, then I want to give you the most graphic of examples of how people judge governments. In 1975, after three years of New DemocraticParty government, for the first time in this province's history the in-migration figures showed that more people moved out of British Columbia than came in. I want to say that even during the tough international recession which we have faced, during these last three years people have continued to move to British Columbia, because they have confidence in the government and its ability to solve our problem. But it is a matter of record. It is a matter of record that after three years of the New Democratic Party government — with the former Minister of Forests being the biggest ogre to business investment this province ever saw — more people left this province than were coming. I want to contrast that right now....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members, I think the time is fast approaching when I must allow a further question from the opposition.

VEHICLE INSPECTION STATIONS

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Last year ICBC prepared a report which projected an increase of four fatalities and 237 injuries per year as a direct result of eliminating mandatory safety inspections. Has the minister received or requested an update of this report showing the actual consequences of his government's policy of eliminating the inspection stations?

HON. A. FRASER: I'm not sure about the dialogue [illegible] up to the question, but I would like to inform the House that I am very happy to report to you that fatal accidents are down in 1984 compared to 1983. I'm very gratified bout that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell has terminated question period.

Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member who is currently standing, the Chair must once again observe that pen-ended questions tend to lead to open-ended responses. he intent of question period is somewhat lost if members themselves do not follow the guidelines that are specifically aid out in the blue book, which will be found in each ember's desk and which I recommend again that you take n opportunity to read.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled an answer to a question on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. REE: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of students from Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver in he gallery today, and I'd ask the House to welcome them to Victoria and the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the sixteenth annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act for he year ending August 31, 1984.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

[ Page 5982 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister responsible for Human Resources and for welfare is also responsible for transit, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to talk a little bit about transit, which is an important new responsibility that the minister has.

The minister announced a funding formula for the city of Vancouver, and indicated that she was writing off half of the capital cost, insofar as the region was concerned, by the province picking up the tab in terms of the linear system itself.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

So that's some $275 million being picked up by all the taxpayers of British Columbia for the ALRT line that only goes through three municipalities. It only goes through Vancouver — a small part of the southeast part of the city from downtown — and south Burnaby to New Westminster. So not even the west side of the city of Vancouver is served by this system that they have decided upon, but north Burnaby is not served, nor any of the other tens of municipalities in the lower mainland region.

We have a bus system in Vancouver, and in that region, that has provided significant service over considerable linear distances with the bus lines. Can the minister advise us what the annual costs of the ALRT system are going to be for the region, compared to the existing costs of the entire bus system in the region currently?

[2:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The cost to the public will be consistent with the charges that are now shared by the three areas of responsibility: first the fare box, the consumer; secondly, the ability that we have given to the civic governments involved to raise the funds; thirdly, the largest portion, picked up by the provincial government. It would be consistent with the price that is now being charged. You must look at ALRT as part of a whole integrated service: the conventional bus service, the handyDART service, the whole B.C. transit service, including SeaBus. It will be somewhat the same as is being charged at the present time, when it comes into service in January 1986. That price will be determined by the Vancouver commission, who set the price and the routes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, can the minister advise us what the annual cost of the system currently is — just with the buses — with respect to the lower mainland, and then advise us what the total number will be once ALRT is in place, after the initial three-month operating period which is being thrown into the capital cost? It seems to me important that we think about the amount of service we've got currently: the mileage of the existing system in terms of the bus system in Vancouver, which serves all of the municipalities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, versus the ALRT line, which is serving only parts of three municipalities. I think it would tell us something fundamental about the kind of decision that was made in terms of going with the ALRT system. It seems to me the kind of matter that's disturbing.

This morning we were covering Human Resources welfare questions, wanting simple data, and it was a very difficult job to get that data. What I'm asking for now, Mr. Chairman, is very simple data with respect to the ALRT and bus line system in greater Vancouver. It's information that I would have thought was readily available in terms of understanding the annual costs of the system now, versus what the annual costs will be once ALRT is operational and available to the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I'll defer to my colleague. I just thought there was going to be a lacuna here, a vacuum, and nobody was going to take it. If my colleague is not prepared to speak on it then I will speak; otherwise he can proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The chair can only recognize those that are standing. If nobody is standing, nobody can be recognized.

MR. WILLIAMS: I can assume then that the minister really doesn't know in a general.... I'm not asking for the points.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member doesn't want it exactly, in round figures the operation of the bus service, the conventional service as it is now, is $150 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's $150 million for the existing system. But once we have ALRT, that starts changing significantly.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, that will begin changing at the beginning of the next fiscal year, March 1986.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I understand that the numbers are $152 million currently, and that took awhile. The numbers that will follow once ALRT is in place will be $288 million; that's what the system will cost us annually in greater Vancouver once ALRT is operational. This is a line that is simply serving a part of three municipalities. So our costs virtually double in the lower mainland region once ALRT is in place. The real numbers are there. The minister is unwilling to give us the data on the existing system and what the changes mean, but that's what it is.

So $288 million becomes the new number for bus service with ALRT in Vancouver, compared to the $152 million currently. Isn't that a shocker when you stop for a minute and think about it? Think about where all the existing bus line systems serve: from the north side of the Fraser Valley to the south side of the Fraser Valley, out into Langley, White Rock, Surrey, Delta, Richmond. None of these municipalities is going to get the benefit of ALRT. All of them are going to have to chip in, in terms of paying for that system that's only going to serve a small part of the region. The cost of extending it just over into Whalley is almost another $300 million.

So the question is, can we afford this system? A billion dollars is already invested in this system, and if we push it over the river into Whalley it's $1.3 billion. The numbers are incredible. It's a $275 million lump that we're swallowing now as a result of the ministerial and cabinet decision for the province to meet some of these costs.

Talk to some of the experts who have been brought over here. Ironically, Expo invited a range of experts here to look at the system, just in the last few months, and again the comments were almost universally that they really didn't think the system was going to work very well. There isn't

[ Page 5983 ]

going to be park and ride, there isn't going to be the kind of integration.... I talked to one of the American experts in the last week about it and asked him: "What would you do?" He said: "I'd cut my losses right now." I said: "Would you extend the system?" He said: "Extending the system is the last thing I would do."

Now that's Prof. Horwood, professor of transportation at the University of Washington in Seattle. He's actually decided he should write a book on the ALRT system, because he's never seen quite such a white elephant in some ways. He's a former Canadian and a frequent visitor to the Vancouver area. He said the ALRT line fits into one of his laws of urban transportation: "Projects expand to use up all the taxes available to them."

With respect to this system, not only are we going to have the fare box paying a small part of the bill; we're going to have the region putting an extra two-cent levy on gasoline within greater Vancouver to pay for this lumbering piece of machinery, and we're going to have to pick up the $275 million as a new provincial debt for all of the people of British Columbia. So it's abundantly clear that we've got a very costly system that we're only beginning to feel the cost of.

Maybe the minister could even give us some advice on the clever mortgaging arrangements that have been developed with respect to this system, because the way I read the new mortgaging arrangements for the rapid transit system in Vancouver is fairly straightforward. You've decided not to pay for it in a direct way — the way a normal house buyer does in our society. The normal home buyer will try to pay off his house as quickly as possible and avoid the huge interest rates that flow from extending the mortgage. Most homeowners would prefer to have a 15- to 20-year mortgage. Most homeowners would prefer a 20- to 25-year mortgage, because the difference in the amount you pay is very modest. It's something like $90 that you might be paying on a $10,000 loan, say on a monthly basis; if you change the amortization period, you're talking about $5 or $6 for five years — a very modest difference.

HON. A. FRASER: You're just giving us socialist arithmetic.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ah, the member for Cariboo knows arithmetic, and he knows that he wouldn't buy a house on a 30-year mortgage — certainly not at his age. But maybe he should at his age.

The point is that we've now got a 30-year mortgage on this system, and lucky for you, because you're not going to be stuck with that debt personally. But the question is, would you consider getting a second mortgage to pay off the first mortgage? How many house buyers would think about getting a second mortgage to pay off the first mortgage? But that's what we're doing in British Columbia with the ALRT system: we're essentially talking about a second mortgage to pay off the first mortgage. You can't do that. That's Social Credit arithmetic, and it doesn't work. It doesn't work at all, because you end up in the minus category all the time, with Social Credit arithmetic. A second mortgage to help pay off the first mortgage: that's a balloon debt. The minister has determined that we're going to live with a balloon debt — a debt bomb — with respect to the ALRT system. She's made the decision that for the first 12 years we will not even pay the full interest on the loans. For the first dozen years we will continue to fall behind. There will be a dead-weight debt dragging behind this system constantly. It won't be until the twelfth or thirteenth year that we start beginning to pay the principal with respect to the ALRT line.

That means we're talking about a massive transfer of wealth to a handful of people in the lower mainland region because of incompetence and wrong decisions that have consistently been made.

I know I asked Mr. Vander Zalm at a public meeting in Vancouver a few months ago: "How come you built this kind of system, Bill? There are those who are looking at it and saying that the cost is immense. The annual costs are horrendous. It's the cost of all the bus system that we've built up through a lifetime. The annual cost of this ALRT line is equal to the rest of the system in the lower mainland. How could you possibly have made that kind of decision, as a responsible politician?" He said: "Well, it just ended up costing four times what I thought it was going to cost." That's Mr. Vander Zalm speaking. What kind of management is that? It's a little different than running on moonbeam, which is more or less what this outfit is, and where some of the comments are from as well.

There it is. Can the minister pull back, and can she try and distance herself from this whole thing, and ask herself the simple question: does it make sense to have this limited line running along the old Central Park interurban line in this part of Vancouver, Burnaby and New West? Does it make sense to spend as much money annually on the ALRT as we're spending on every bus line in the lower mainland, providing service to Ladner, Tsawwassen, north Delta, Surrey, Langley, the Coquitlams, Port Moody, North Burnaby, the North Shore — all of these countless areas that are not being served? Does that make any economic sense at all? I'm sure the Chairman appreciates the fact that the ALRT line is not providing any service in North Vancouver or any of the North Shore municipalities.

[2:45]

Maybe the minister can confirm that the system's going to cost twice as much once the new ALRT line is in place. It's going to cost twice as much, and we're getting that limited facility for 50 percent of our dollars in greater Vancouver transit, compared to all the bus lines already there. Our existing bus system serves about 100 million passengers a year, and this thing is going to cost us the equivalent.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, this is really an interesting comment from the second member for Vancouver East. It's fascinating, in fact, because he was part of a city council in Vancouver many years ago that made the decision over and over again to have some kind of alleviation of the traffic woes of the Vancouver region. This is a member, sitting in this House, who was part of a local government which paid for studies. They didn't do anything about them, mind you; they had them stacked up in neat little rows on shelves. GVRD alone has eight studies just leading up to the decision that was made.

This member says that the cost is more. I'm sorry that he puts words in the mouth of a former colleague, because the same former colleague, a colleague in this House, who initiated the ALRT in his responsibilities as Minister of Municipal Affairs.... It is quite clear, in looking back in all the minutes of GVRD and the decisions made and the decision made by the Municipal Affairs minister at that time, that the project delivered today, in these dollars today, is essentially the same as the project that was planned by GVRD but

[ Page 5984 ]

never acted upon by the government represented by the member who has just taken his place.

He also has left an erroneous impression in this House that the ALRT, because of its financing formula, is going to place an unfair burden on future generations. Well, that's not so. What it is going to place in the deferred mortgage program, which we presented and which was accepted by the commission, represented, by the way, by elected officials in all of those municipalities and others from all over the province.... The B.C. Transit board and the commission itself, elected officials from all over the province, and particularly those who are representing Burnaby, Vancouver, New Westminster, Surrey — all were present, and they were unanimous in their endorsement of a program which allowed a deferred mortgage payment.

The member well knows that it is recognized that in large programs, with the expenditure of this kind of money, it is quite usual to amortize that mortgage over a longer period than you would, perhaps, on your personal home. Making that kind of analogy is just a bunch of nonsense. He knows that.

The people who are going to be using the system as the years go on are going to be paying some of that mortgage by their user fees. That's the way it should be. We don't want to burden the first users of the program unnecessarily. That was quite well understood, strangely enough, by all the members of the board of B.C. Transit and also the Vancouver commission.

The member says that it's an expensive program. It's interesting that he quotes someone from Seattle. You know, I think that that same person the member quoted said that the ride on the ALRT was going to cost the rider somewhere around $7 or $9. That's really some kind of an example to use. We've even heard some people who live in British Columbia say that it's going to be $5. Some have even said it's going to be $30. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to relieve the member of any apprehension he may have. It's not going to be that.

I said, on the first question you asked as we came back into the House this afternoon, that it is going to be consistent with the overall program of the transportation service. This service is equal to some 28 lines of traffic. We are alleviating for all time any need to tear up houses, apartments and commercial avenues, to uproot businesses and people's homes, to build further and further transportation links in the greater Vancouver area. We're extremely lucky that we had the right-of-way left by the old B.C. Electric, the B.C. Hydro right-of-way. If we had had to start with acquisition of land, it is quite possible.... In fact I would almost say that we wouldn't even be discussing that tremendous program.

I am really surprised to hear any member from Vancouver.... I can quite understand members from other parts of the province, who haven't seen the system and what it touches, haven't been on the traffic routes in the city of Vancouver at rush hour — or any other time — or have not had the opportunity to see the economic impetus that the 15 stations have already had on the lower mainland.... The member stands in his place and derides a program which is going to bring an economic initiative which is beyond, I'm sure, even his capability of seeing.

It is providing that in the Burnaby area, where half a billion dollars has already been spent at Metro station, with another half a billion dollars on the drawing board. All those buildings being built means construction jobs. It also means jobs afterwards to service the apartments, to service the commercial areas. There's a great deal of interest and speculation going on in an area which has probably had more kinds of publicity in this House and outside on the line.... That's the Commercial Drive and Broadway area. I'd like that member to go back and ask the Commercial Drive and Broadway area if they'd like to get rid of the overhead ALRT today. I can tell you that the answer to that would be absolutely no. It's doing a very good job. It's going up the back lane of Commercial Drive. All of those businesses are going to benefit. It's costing less because we're on an elevated guideway. All of the nonsense which he was part of in the days when all of that protest was going on is well behind us. Those people are extremely pleased that, along the whole line of 15 stations, that Commercial Drive and Broadway station will probably benefit the most in terms of rehabilitation and jobs being created.

This member who has just been on his feet.... I may be wrong; it may be the member for Vancouver Centre. But either of those members over there represent that area. They should be on their feet applauding the government for the initiative that we have shown in building ALRT. It's an exceptional technology. It's quiet, modern and clean. It's going to provide economic initiatives yet to be seen by this province, because I don't think anybody, including the member who has just spoken, really realizes the incredible economic impetus that it will provide.

I'm glad, I have to say, in a political way — and I don't mind one bit being political — to see that members of the New Democratic Party have consistently been against ALRT. I'm going to be quite pleased to be able to convey that message. I recall that in the last election it was one of the election planks in the platform of the NDP that they wanted to go back to streetcars. They wanted the old horse-and-buggy days. We've decided that we're not going to go back to the horse-and-buggy days. We're going to have the most modern equipment. We have been extremely tenacious in carrying out a program that ministers in the NDP government refused to act on, that those people on the opposite side of the House refused to support during all these years. But that's fine. I'm rather pleased that they take that stand, because it can do them absolutely no good politically.

But I have to tell you that we're here for other things than politics. We're here to serve the people. That line is going to serve the people and bring fantastic economic initiatives to that area of Burnaby, New Westminster and Vancouver. We'll tell the people just how you feel about that.

If there are any other questions on ALRT, I can tell you one of the questions you should be asking is: why did the GVRD decide to go for that system? I understand that you were against that system. You still are against that system today. But if you want to know the reason, there are all sorts of reasons. First of all, it's Canadian technology, and that's worth something to those of us on this side of the House. Secondly, it's technology that is more reasonable than any other we could have purchased. And thirdly, it's a system which we are going to be able to point to with pride during this upcoming Expo 86 celebration, because we are going to be able to point to Canadian technology and sell it to other parts of the country and other parts of the world. This member can laugh, Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to tell you: the numbers of people who have visited Vancouver already from other jurisdictions, including one over this past weekend, who have shown tremendous interest in the technology and in

[ Page 5985 ]

the line that is being built.... It's totally consistent with everything that was planned by GVRD many long years ago. The only difference is that you have a government, the Social Credit government, that initiated the program, and it has carried it out. By January of next year it will be in full service. Then let the member for Vancouver East ride on it and say what he said today. I'm sure that he'll find that he's a lone voice in the wilderness.

MR. WILLIAMS: Like most of the people in the region, it won't serve me; it's simply serving a small portion of the region. If it were serving my neighbourhood, I might, but where I live....

If we look at the linear system that exists now.... That's what I'd like the minister to attempt to do: to think about the people who ride the buses and to think about the existing system and how many neighbourhoods and communities it serves, what the linear distance of that system is and what it costs us versus the system that is now being put in place. The street kilometres that we have with the existing bus system, I understand, are 1,135. What's the length of the ALRT line, Madam Minister? What is it — 21 kilometres?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Twenty-one kilometres.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's going to cost us the same amount of money every year. Even though we're not paying the mortgage properly, it's going to cost us the same amount of money virtually every year for that 21 kilometre system, compared to the 1,135 kilometre system. I ask you: does that make any sense? What kind of wastrel would make that kind of decision? If we can serve 100 million people annually on a system with 1,135 kilometres, and then decide to spend almost the same amount of money on a system 21 kilometres long, does that make any sense? Is the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) going to go sell that one in his riding — a 21 kilometre system, with a capital cost of around a billion dollars, and it will cost what the rest of the bus system in Vancouver cost?

We now have communities in the suburbs that are saying, "We should have some kind of rapid transit system, " and indeed they should. But the province of British Columbia will not be able to afford to serve the rest of the municipalities within the region with this kind of technology. It's simply too costly. You're picking up a $275 million bill this year alone for the province. You give the speeches, and you say, "Oh, it's a nice technology," and "Yes, there's not great separation," and then you say it will get rid of the congestion in downtown Vancouver. I'd like to ask the minister if she knows what the projections are in terms of how many people riding to work will ride on this system. What are the projections with respect to the people going to work? That's our main congestion time. How many will be using this system, in terms of the total transit ridership?

[3:00]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, let me respond to a couple of questions that were in the long statement. First, ALRT will carry about a third of the total ridership in the lower mainland — one-third. Right at the beginning it will service one-third, and it will tie into.... As you know. the whole conventional system will be changed in order to tie into the new ALRT system.

You can't take the ALRT in isolation — the 21 kilometres. If you were to do that with the SeaBus, which has an annual cost of $2 million annually, and you did that just in isolation for the number of passengers on it, you would say that it doesn't pay. If you take just the handyDART system, with which we serve the handicapped in the province and the lower mainland, almost 400,000 rides for the handicapped were undertaken last year alone. If you took that in isolation, you would say that if you put per ride to that, you couldn't do it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Transportation has to be a whole range of services tying in one with the other. A person goes from the north shore on SeaBus to the city of Vancouver, works in downtown Vancouver, and perhaps may take the bus in the course of their work to another part of the city. Then they may return home by bus, and then by SeaBus. You may even have somebody who works and lives in New Westminster and maybe takes a bus to ALRT, takes ALRT in, transfers at the waterfront station, takes the SeaBus over to the north shore and goes to an office in the north shore. But it's all an integrated system, and you can't take it in isolation. Any attempt to do so is just another way of the socialists trying to isolate the figures to support a false premise that they would like the public to believe in.

But let me just say that the projections are for the whole system, and at the present time the system carries about 60 percent of the people who are downtown out of the downtown area each and every night and into it each and every morning, via public transportation. We expect that will increase with the advent of ALRT, at least because of the novelty of ALRT and because of its convenience and because of the connecting routes to all of the major transportation routes that we already have established.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. second member for Vancouver East is understandably interested in costs. The new ALRT project, by the time it reaches Surrey, will have cost in capital terms in the order of of $1 billion, and that's a lot of money. I think properly it should be costed, and the manner in which the cost recovery occurs should be explained.

He's also a planner, and I'm surprised that he doesn't see the transportation network of the lower mainland in the longer-term prospect.

We're talking about several modes of transportation in the lower mainland. Buses are the most conventional nowadays. They are highly mobile. Their capital cost is relatively low and their operating costs relatively high. They're ideal for serving areas which are not as dense as others. Bus routes can handily be changed. They have a flexibility as well as a relatively low capital cost per mile — however he wants to calculate it.

SeaBus, which I think was a worthy invention of the NDP — although there had been others talking about it before it was contracted in the early 1970s — has turned out to be a reasonable mode of crossing Burrard Inlet. But in its first several years the cost per ride, if one wanted to include all the capital involved, was $4 or $5. As the ridership grew — as residents began to build homes, live in highrises on the north shore close to the north shore terminal and so on — the average cost has come down. It's now more reasonable, and it's going down as that service is used increasingly. It's more

[ Page 5986 ]

capital-intensive than buses. It's taken a while for it to make sense on its own in a total system.

Rail transportation is intensely capital-expensive. It's capital-intensive. Rail systems only make sense between major centres of population. The rail system which the NDP was contemplating would have run along much the same route as ALRT is running, and would have connected downtown Vancouver with Metrotown and Burnaby, with downtown New Westminster, and ultimately with Surrey Place and Coquitlam Centre. It wouldn't have cost as much. It wouldn't have been as capital-intensive, but by comparison with the system which is nearing completion now it was a Toonerville Trolley. It was similar to the Tijuana system, the system now operating out of San Diego, running along a single track at ground level, not very often, having to slow down at intersections, having to slow down or stop to wait for an oncoming train, using older, heavyweight equipment, always manned. It wouldn't have cost as much, admittedly, but the elapsed time would have been two or three times as great. It wouldn't have attracted the same ridership as light rail rapid transit in the form that we've purchased it.

Yes, the capital cost per mile is very high, but it's the nature of the system. It will be the backbone of a fully integrated public transportation system on the lower mainland, and, as has happened in many other metropolitan areas — Toronto is a good example — there will be a lot of new construction around stations. As the years go by, as the population of the lower mainland multiplies, as new construction continues, many more people will be living in close proximity to the rail stations and using the very fast, highly automated system to get to and from work. They won't need a second car and so on. Indeed, by reorganizing bus routes and so on, people tributary to the system can come a distance by bus and then go through the more congested areas at rush hour much more conveniently and much more rapidly.

Yes, this is an investment for the long term. I've seen studies that indicate that the average cost per ride on the system itself won't come down to the average cost of buses before the mid-1990s — perhaps even the year 2000. But the system will be around for another 50 years or more. Certainly the right-of-way and much of the support apparatus will be in place 50 years from now. So we're making a long-term investment.

The hon. member for Vancouver East decries the process of capitalizing interest as one of the ways of keeping fares reasonable over the short term. Well, the NDP certainly did it with B.C. Rail through their years in power. They didn't hesitate to continue to capitalize interest on B.C. Rail. So it isn't a practice that's peculiar to one side of the House or another. I'm glad that the province has come up with a formula which is reasonably consistent from one municipality to another — namely sharing the capital cost. I think because the province chose the system initially there was some reason why it should put up a lump sum. Incidentally, the Canadian government also put up a lump sum which, capitalized, is perhaps worth $100 million now. They put it up because this was new Canadian technology.

The main reason why the per-ride costs will tend to be stable while those of buses and other modes rise is that the operating costs are so low on this highly capital-intensive system. The operating costs are of the order of $20 million a year; on the present bus system they are six or seven times that number. The operating costs will rise, but because the base is small, the operating element of cost will not be as much of a problem as it would have been had we opted for buses only.

I know the hon. member isn't serious when he talks about or at least implies buses only for all time, because congestion first in downtown Vancouver and later in other areas would have become incredible. Some decision had to be made about another and physically more efficient system of transport. That's why the NDP were talking about a light rail system, but as I said before, it was a cheapie, cheap in the sense that it was going to have to run across streets at grade level, cheap because it was one line rather than two rail lines in parallel, cheap because they were not going to run anything like as many cars or trains. But it wouldn't have attracted the traffic. It wouldn't have got people out of cars. This system isn't going to do that very rapidly, but it's going to do it over the long run much more effectively than a low-cost, cheap system which really was not much of an improvement on the old interurban.

The old interurban was built before the automobile. It was built in part before the turn of the century. It functioned for nearly 50 years, but people ceased to ride it because it was comparatively slow, because it was hazardous, because at least in the fifties and sixties people could get to and from work fairly easily by automobile. But why go back to the old-style system in order to save some capital costs when that capital expenditure will put more people to work in a period of unemployment and will give us a system that will serve us for 50 years and more?

I agree that there's a challenge in financing a billion dollar system. But what better time to build it? And if the system of financing can be developed in such a way that fares can be kept reasonable and people can be attracted to the total system of bus, SeaBus and ALRT, why not go with the financing formula we have now? A billion-dollar system — and I'm including the extension to Surrey — would cost over $100 million in capital charges and another $20 million or so in operating charges. It would not double the cost of the system, but would go some distance towards doubling it. It's less if some of those charges are capitalized, but again that was a judgment matter. I don't think, on principle, that capitalization of the interest can offend the NDP, because they embraced it when they were in power.

Anyway, I think the new system will in the long run prove to be a blessing, will turn out to be technically very acceptable. It's the new system for Toronto, developed by the government of Ontario. It has sold in Detroit; it will, I'm convinced, sell elsewhere. It's not selling in the United States — other than in Detroit — because no one is building new systems in the United States right now. I think Canada has done well to build the Toronto system, the Montreal system, the less efficient Calgary and Edmonton systems, and now Vancouver. I think we're ahead of the Americans in this regard, and with the new technology I think we are showing the world how.

[3:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair would like to make one comment. The debate so far from the minister, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has been most productive to the estimates before us right now. There is one caution. We have Bill 17 before us, which deals with the transit amendment and does speak of borrowing. I realize that much of the productive debate we've heard in Committee of

[ Page 5987 ]

Supply does indicate with respect to operating costs and their payback, and that is relevant. However, I would caution members with the fact of offending the rule of anticipation that we do not discuss the one section, the principle of Bill 17. That's just a caution and is in no way meant to frustrate the debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I really would like to thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for his remarks. Also, if I may, I want to take this opportunity to welcome some students on behalf of Mr. Speaker, from Burnsview Junior Secondary School in Delta. Their guests are from Souris Regional High School in Prince Edward Island. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming those students who are still in the gallery. Also, Mr. Chairman, may I at this time introduce to the House the general manager of B.C. Transit, Mr. Larry Miller, who is assisting me in today's estimates as they relate to B.C. Transit.

I would also like to bring the point home, because the Toronto system was mentioned, that one of the things people forget about our system of transportation in the lower mainland is that we cover three times the territory that Toronto does. We have by far the larger territory to cover, and we do cover it and give that service, but we don't have the advantage of that concentrated population. So considering that, our conventional bus system has done a very good job in that regard.

I would also like to point out that in 1975 there were some 14 operating systems in this province providing a conventional bus service; today, in 1985, there are 54. That's a tremendous jump in just a short time. In 1975 the provincial contribution to those systems was $3 million. Today it's $74.3 million, a significant increase in contribution by the provincial government. The number of vehicles has increased as well. I think the story of public transportation as it has been undertaken has been a very good story in this province,

MR. WILLIAMS: I would just like to make a point. The minister has said that Vancouver is much more spread out than the Toronto system. Precisely. That's the whole point in terms of the message I've been trying to relate for the last half hour: that is that an extensive bus system is serving this broad dispersed community. That's the problem in terms of 1,100 miles of bus service. What we're talking about here is a 21 kilometre system, so that's why it's rather strange. Put the two together, Madam minister. You're willing to spend $150 million a year on a new system that's only 21 kilometres long, and that's what we presently spend on a pretty good bus system for the whole darned region.

Now the response will be: "Well, there's this tremendous growth in Metrotown, there's going to be all this other growth at the stations," and more like that. Well, the metro town stuff has been happening anyway, but that's clearly the one major growth area. If you look at the Vancouver stations, there are currently no significant changes with respect to those stations.

One has to think about where the attractive places are in terms of the new living environment in greater Vancouver. Is Kingsway the great amenity street of Vancouver? That's essentially the route of this system. So the big new residential growth is along Kingsway. Now Kingsway is hardly King Edward Boulevard or Shaughnessy Heights. It's a neat question in terms of where we want the residential growth of the region. A certain amount will certainly build along this right-of-way, but the question of the amenity we're providing those people is a pretty neat question indeed, in terms of the full range of urban amenities. They may well be elsewhere.

But I understand that the numbers, in terms of the journey to work, are that you're projecting something like 9 percent of the total journey to work being handled on this system. The numbers that others see are even less than that. So in terms of congestion and the journey-to-work problem, this isn't coming anywhere near to dealing with the basic heavy traffic problem that we have in the region.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Just in response to that one point, because I think it's an important one, I think the member needs some clarification. I know that he probably won't take it, but I'm pleased to give it. I know the background of this member is in planning. It's interesting that he would take the ALRT corridor and the ALRT service in isolation from the total transportation system in the lower mainland. It is a dispersed community — we've made that point.

I think it's a great credit to the public transportation system, to the staff and to the deliverers of that system, that we cover such a large area. But it has its concentrated transportation corridors. That was recognized by the GVRD many years ago — many meetings and many studies ago. It wasn't a question of whether we should have rapid transit, or some other kind of transportation to alleviate the bottlenecks in transportation for the next 50 years in the lower mainland; it was a question of when it would come. The first phase simply builds upon the historical development patterns of the region. It meets that very well. It not only meets it for today, and for the next two decades, but it's also going to meet it for a long time to come, because one of the good things that has been built into this system is that as the need arises we simply add cars. We don't have to add structure and guideways; we just add cars.

So we're obviously not going to agree. I think that as time goes on you're going to find that's a service that's really going to be well taken by the lower mainland.

MR. ROSE: I have a couple of items that I wish to discuss. I don't intend to get into the economics of ALRT. I'm not familiar with them. I don't feel that I'm competent to argue about whether or not it's valid economically, or whether or not alternatives should have been considered. But one of the things that bothers the communities I represent — Port Coquitlam and Port Moody — is the fact that they don't get any and aren't likely to, but they're going to be asked to pay for it anyway. They express great concern about that.

The minister may know that at a recent meeting of a number of the adjacent municipalities, including people from New Westminster, Burnaby, Port Moody and Maple Ridge, they all made representations to have the ALRT line extend at least as far as the Lougheed...to Coquitlam town centre. As far as they're concerned, that line would serve far more people at less cost than the line into Surrey. It therefore has a greater opportunity to be practical. I could give the minister quotations in terms of numbers and population. I don't think that's necessary, because I think the minister has the brief that was sent out by Coquitlam under the signature of Mayor Sekora. He points out that by 1991 they expect 71,000 people in that general area. Should that line go out to Coquitlam

[ Page 5988 ]

Centre, there is government property right across from Coquitlam Centre which could serve as the location for a station.

I understand too that the B.C. transit board has recommended the extension regardless of the criticism levied by the professor from Seattle — whatever his name is; he was mentioned here a little while ago — that it would be madness to consider extensions. I think, whether it's madness or not, that it's not up to me to make that decision or to come to that conclusion.

My job here — at least part of it, as I see it — is to present to this House the representations on behalf of those people I represent, because, if I may repeat, they are going to be asked, through gas taxes and in one way and another.... They're going to be assessed for the cost of this line. I think the point of the member for Vancouver East is well taken: that everybody bears the cost. But relatively few people can avail themselves of the service.

They point out, for instance, that there are going to be more people, and it's going to be actually cheaper to go into Coquitlam than it will be to go into Scott. They can get a rider at least to Brunette Street, which is really Maillardville; it isn't in my riding. That may have some allure. In fact, it would serve the interests of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks). I'm sure that he attended the meeting of which I speak — all those local mayors and civic officials — and I know that he would support that kind of extension.

The point that we would like to make on behalf of the residents of Port Coquitlam and Port Moody is that there are going to be a tremendous number of people interested in using that line, and probably for less money than it would take for the line and the bridge into Surrey — some $196 million, according to this brief. The capital expenses investment to Brunette would cost about $46,000 or $47,000 per rider, where it's roughly $50,000 or $51,000 for those riders who would originate at Scott Road. I don't know whether that takes into account the bridge or not.

I would be interested to know what the capital cost per passenger is for the existing system. I think that is part of the question that the member for Vancouver East was interested in too, so if a note could be made of that, that really is my first question. My first question is: what is the capital cost of the existing system — the capital investment necessary per rider for the existing system?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister.

MR. ROSE: I've got a couple more, so I might as well kill three birds with one stone, with your permission.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: For the ALRT, yes.

The other thing is: what is the minister's viewpoint on and the timetable for extending the line as far as Brunette, as far as Lougheed, as far as Coquitlam Centre, in view of B.C. Transit's recommendation? It said that it should be extended to the Lougheed Mall by 1990. Are there any plans to do that?

Further, I could go into the billion dollars worth of Crown lands in Coquitlam, which are cited in the brief as justification for peak-rider and off-peak and on-peak rush-hour trips. The point they make is that they feel they're as entitled to consideration for their communities as any other community.

I'll stop here, but I'd like to reserve the right to ask some other questions on another matter following these questions.

[3:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, the direct answer regarding the capital cost is $854 million for the 21 kilometres in the first phase. I have to say that you wouldn't be able to put that down to a cost per person, because firstly you don't know what the ridership will be. Secondly, you don't know....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, if you wanted to take the highest, we're saying 30,000 people per hour. It has the ability to take 30 million riders. If you wanted to divide that into the $854 million.... But those 30 million riders are not....

MR. ROSE: Per year?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, per year — for the first year. Now this will increase as our projections increase. However, that too is a bit misleading for this reason: those people, as I said earlier in response to the mortgage question, will not be carrying the burden solely in that first year. So again that's a bit misleading. If you're trying to get a capital cost per rider in the first year, you're burdening them with more than you should, is what I'm saying.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) has given a tremendous amount of his time in order to make sure that we respond to both your question and his question in a positive manner. May I just say that the B.C. Transit board gave an overall recommendation to do both Surrey and Coquitlam; it wasn't in isolation. They were backing both routes, saying that both routes were needed in the next short while.

May I say that it's interesting to see a split in the NDP caucus. On the one hand we have the member for Vancouver East saying that the line should never be built, and you, sir, imploring us to go farther with the ALRT line with your last question. So that's refreshing, and I'm pleased to see that.

May I just say to you that Coquitlam is a very high priority. There have been no statements or announcements made about going to Coquitlam. I guess the member himself will realize that besides that brief from the mayor of Coquitlam, which emanated from a meeting that our member for Maillardville-Coquitlam and other mayors attended, there were also since that time, almost attendant with that day, a lot of submissions regarding the commuter rail into Vancouver through the Port Moody area. We really have to define what the community itself is asking for, because they're really asking for two things here. One is really in conflict with the other, because if you build one, I'm afraid the other one would not get the ridership.

However, I'm pleased to tell you that in the next two months we are doing a summation of the whole lower mainland and Fraser Valley routes, so we will have a very good idea. We'll be able to share it with the communities in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley. It will relate to transportation to the year 2000 and beyond. So all of that will be rationalized.

MR. ROSE: For the benefit of the minister — and I thank her for her reply — I don't detect any conflict with the position that I've taken. I thought I put it very clearly vis-a-

[ Page 5989 ]

vis my concerns and the concerns mentioned by the member for Vancouver East. That was that if the people of my area were going to have to pay for this line, through gas taxes or whatever kinds of other levies needed for the line, they should have an equal opportunity to have access to it; that is the point. I don't think it's in conflict at all.

I am not judging the merits or demerits of the economics of the line. But I would like to quote from Mayor Sekora's letter, which says: "District of Coquitlam supported that decision based on population and potential ridership" — he's speaking of the Bennett decision to extend the line to Surrey; but here's the operative phrase — "but we do not feel Surrey should receive full ALRT service at the expense of other areas." This is what Mr. Sekora says. In fact, I think he's a staunch supporter of the present government. He says: "In fact, it would cost less to extend the ALRT service to Coquitlam than to go all the way into Surrey."

On the other matter, I would like to ask the minister to bear with me while I read a little portion of a letter from Alderman Francis of Port Moody. I think the minister underlined this fact. They're talking about the ALRT and commuter rail, and whether or not one should be considered a competitor of the other, or one should be considered complementary to the other. I'll quote from Alderman Francis's letter. He says: "There is a danger that ALRT and commuter rail may be seen provincially as rivals, rather than as complementary systems."

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I would point out to the minister that they're concerned down in Port Moody, and they've been working on this for a long time. As a matter of fact, about 15 years ago or more I investigated that line into Vancouver by the CPR, and I thought it was all set up, through computer switching and everything else, in preparation for commuter lines. There has been no significant push, through a couple of party governments, since that time.

Anyway, Alderman Francis says: "Unless we get a commitment before the summer of 1985, the service will not commence in time for Expo." He feels that while ALRT is going to be extremely expensive for the provincial share, the commuter rail would be available at one-thirtieth to one fiftieth of the cost. I'm not quoting him here. Actually, I'm quoting a phone call from Mayor Driscoll; and I think I've got to be fair to him and say that I'm suggesting that this is what he has said. He'll let me know if I've misquoted him.

The problem is that they're not going to hold their breath for ALRT, in spite of my representations. They don't think that I'll be very convincing, I guess. They don't really want to hold their breath, because in view of the other priorities of the government, the fact is that an ALRT branch isn't going to bounce into Port Moody in the near future. I think that we can be reasonably certain that it probably won't get to Port Moody; it might get to Brunette. It depends on when the election is. The announcement might get to Brunette Street, anyway. However, I'm quite certain that it's likely, given the political complexion of Coquitlam-Moody, that it would be a little bit more lethargic in its progress towards my community of Port Moody.

I'd like to quote the mayor here. He says:

"I should also like to reiterate the contention made by the city's delegation on the occasion of December '84 in a visit with you" — that is, the Hon. Alec Fraser — "namely that we strongly believe that a commuter rail along Burrard Inlet will both provide immediate relief of traffic congestion from Mission to Vancouver and result in a deferral of major highway expenditures. Therefore we ask you to consider this point carefully and support it when the matter arises, presumably in caucus, as it usually does."

The minister recently wrote the chamber of commerce in Coquitlam. The letter was dated February 1, it was posted on March 25, and lo and behold, it arrived at the Coquitlam Chamber of Commerce on April 24. Now it spent almost as long in the post office as it did on the minister's desk, which is approximately six weeks — no, six or seven weeks to four. But anyway, regardless of that, it indicated that the minister didn't feel at this time that there was much hope of proceeding with commuter rail. Now I've been in contact with both the mayor of Port Moody and the Member of Parliament for Mission–Port Moody, my successor, who is very interested in serving his riding and in commuter rail and in getting along with this government and any future government of British Columbia. I asked him about this: did he support it? He said yes, he supported it. He felt that the member for Dewdney and a number of other members would support it. He said that it's the view of some people that Mission to Port Moody is a natural for commuter rail; that it would probably cost in the neighbourhood of $32 million. It's under national jurisdiction because, as you know, it is an interprovincial rail line.

Apparently it has overwhelming superiority over the ALRT, at least in the short run, to serve the needs of those residents, and it's more likely to happen now, cheaper — probably at a cost of about $10 million to the province. They have a site already, as I mentioned, at the town centre. Apparently there's also rolling stock for this commuter rail operation for CPR. It's not special automated cars or anything else. The rolling stock is mothballed — someone suggested with square wheels, but I wouldn't believe that — somewhere in Ontario. I'd like to ask whether or not that's a fact.

He also indicated that should there be an initiation by the minister.... Since it is provincial jurisdiction and it's on an interprovincial rail line, the initiation would have to come from the minister herself. Second question: has the minister indicated to the Minister of Transport, Don Mazankowski in Ottawa...? Has he any inkling or has he had any requests to do what he has to do on behalf of commuter rail on CPR lines, if not from Mission to Vancouver at least from Moody to Vancouver or Coquitlam to Vancouver? And the next question is: is the minister aware that Mr. Fraser seems to be quite supportive, Mr. St. Germain seems to be quite supportive and also that 50-50 federal-provincial sharing will apply? Finally, is she aware that Mr. Mazankowski, if he runs into any barriers or impediments in price or otherwise — imposed through legal measures by the CPR — is prepared to amend the Railway Act so that that commuter rail system can proceed? I've asked about four questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, a couple of things. Without being too specific about whether or not commuter rail is a good idea, I really want the member to know that we are certainly pleased to receive any kind of submission at all that the federal government wants to give. First of all, we have had communication with Mr. Mazankowski's office.

Secondly, I want you to know that there is no formula for 50-50 federal funding. Even though the member may think

[ Page 5990 ]

there is, there is not. It would be nice if there were. We would be the first to applaud that move from the federal administration.

The cost for this commuter rail is significant, inasmuch as that particular route will carry about 2,000 passengers per day at a cost, as you said in your address, of approximately $35 million. ALRT is capable of carrying 30,000 people per hour, but in the first year will carry about 10,000 people per hour. So you can see that there's more to this than meets the eye.

At first blush we would say that we just want to sit down with them. They seem to be anxious to do so. We have not closed that door. We would like to do so, but I think the initiative would come from the federal administration, as the Railway Act comes under their jurisdiction. We await that. I have been trying to arrange a first meeting with Mr. Mazankowski, and that is in the hands of his office.

I can say to you that the proposal which may come from the federal administration — I understand that interest is very keen and very high — will, of course, have a bearing on what else we do. I don't see it as saying that it has to be one or the other. But we'd certainly have to take a good look at any decisions that are made affecting the other decision on ALRT. Of course we'd have to look at both. We couldn't say, and I certainly can't say to you on the floor of this House, that both would be acceptable, because we have no idea what the federal government's changes would be. I understand there is legislation pending which will give the minister a little more say in what decisions he will make; but that, as I understand, isn't even in the federal House as yet. So it would be meaningless for me to try to make a statement here that would assist you in that. In response to your question about commuter rail, we certainly have an open mind about sitting down with federal officials and discussing it.

[3:45]

MR. ROSE: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a couple of other questions. I didn't get an answer about the mothballed rolling stock already purchased and sitting somewhere in Ontario. I guess that's not too important. I could go into what it would cost per passenger per day, or whatever, in terms of investment, but I'm sure the investment would be far less. The density and the volume may not be as high, but the initial investment would be far less.

Could I ask the minister, since she has told us that she is trying to arrange a meeting: have you written the minister to arrange a meeting, Madam Minister? If you do, would you request 50-50 funding, so that that $30 million price tag could be met? Finally, would you request the participation of the federal government in any commuter rail, at least for the startup costs and whatever amendments to the Railway Act might be needed?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member wants to know if I have written. The answer to that is yes, but I do not have an answer as yet. It's in Ottawa now, I do know, because the general manager has been in touch with the Ottawa office just this afternoon.

MR. ROSE: Would the minister be prepared to negotiate backup, rather than simply for a meeting? The other question is about whether she is going to approach him for assistance on commuter rail from Port Moody.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I have not specified, other than to ask for a meeting in British Columbia, to sit down with the new minister with his new responsibilities for transportation. I would think that we would certainly not enter any meeting in that regard and have our minds set on any negotiation. First of all, we're going to identify the need. Secondly, I would not go into any meeting considering a 50-50 proposition. I think that we would be finding out what the federal government wishes to produce on their rail line and what they are offering to the province of British Columbia. Thirdly, I would like to be discussing with Mr. Mazankowski future investment in all forms of transportation and what this new federal government wishes to do in that regard, because as you know we were quite disappointed in the past that the federal government in no way came up to the expectations that we had for assisting us in terms of our new initiative in light rapid transit.

MR. ROSE: Could you tell us when you wrote?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, may I just repeat the member's question so it's on the record; he asks, when did I write? I wrote following my recent trip to Ottawa, because prior to my trip to Ottawa I had hoped to have a meeting in Ottawa with Mr. Mazankowski. They were unable to make that arrangement for me at that time, and I was personally quite tied up with the social services side of my ministry while I was there. I thought I might be able to work in an appointment at that time; however, it wasn't possible to coordinate that with our two offices. Following my return in about the last two weeks, I wrote the following day, and he has that request in his office — as far as I know, of course.

MR. PARKS: I was interested in the minister's comment with respect to expecting a 10,000 ridership the first year with respect to the ALRT route Vancouver through Westminster. I was extremely pleased to have the opportunity to travel a good length of that route last week — in fact from the downtown station right through to the Patterson station in Burnaby. I was amazed at the smoothness and the speed with which that new system works right through the heart of Vancouver and Burnaby.

Speaking as a member representing the lower mainland, and in particular my constituency on the north side of the Fraser, it seems to me that there will be a great opportunity to increase that ridership manyfold by the extension into the areas that the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has just been referring to, and in particular what we call the northeast sector. I appreciate that there is undoubtedly a significant amount of capital cost involved in such a system, and obviously we have to face such development. But with the first phase almost completed and almost in service, I would expect with citizens of the lower mainland becoming experienced with that particular system and the speed — not only the speed, but the safety and convenience — with which it's going to be able to commute people from Westminster and Burnaby into Vancouver, we're going to see a tremendously increased awareness and hence a tremendously increased desire to have that extension into not only the Surreys, which I commend, but also of course into my constituency and all others up the north side of the river.

I also heard the minister say that there was a long-term transit study being undertaken at this time. It wasn't clear if the minister was referring just to ALRT on the north side of

[ Page 5991 ]

the river, or if she was also referring to an evaluation of the commuter rail — the subject that was just discussed between she and the member for Coquitlam-Moody — and whether or not it was even going to consider utilizing the potential water route from Vancouver harbour into, say, Port Moody's harbour.

Clearly, with the Mary Hill bypass just about to come in service — hopefully within this year — there is going to be a fairly direct link from, if you will, the Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge–Mission area right into my constituency, the Maillardville area. While I would certainly be advocating a very early extension of the ALRT to the Brunette area, if you will, I wonder if the minister is prepared to confirm just what the various components included in that long-term transit study are, and whether or not we can expect anything more definitive than what the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody suggested with respect to an early announcement for Coquitlam.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate the question, and could I just say that one of the things we know we don't need a great deal of is further study of transportation. There has been so much done. What we do need is to take all of the information that we have and place it in the context of the new revised routes — the whole reorganization of routes in the greater Vancouver area and the Fraser Valley area — in order to make sure that the advent of rapid transit is best handled in conjunction with some of the concerns raised by members who want ALRT, or want something else in their area. We will be looking at the existing bus routes. Of course, there's been a lot of reorganization already on the drawing board in terms of ALRT. We'll be looking at commuter rail; at the use of existing highways and right-of-ways; at water transport; at our whole handyDART system and ALRT system, and how they tie in with the new ALRT. All of those things will be taken into consideration. I really want you to know that our staff is working with the existing information. We are not going out and getting a whole new study. We know this is something that has been studied very much; we have the information but we want to coordinate it with the new service that will be going in place.

In response to the member's desire to have the Coquitlam extension of ALRT phased in in the next little while, again I may say — as I did to the member who has just taken his place — that that is a decision which has not yet been made, but I appreciate the concern you have expressed, and that the mayor of Coquitlam and other people have expressed. No doubt when this study is done we will be a little closer to decision making in that regard.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's just pause and look at those numbers in terms of service to Scott Road or to Brunette, the capital cost numbers per rider that were presented just a few minutes ago. Did the minister hear them? Did the minister put it together? Capital cost per rider in the rush-hour period: $46,800 at the Brunette station; $50,800 at the Scott Road station.

Let's just stop and think about that — $50,000 per rider. My God, this morning we were arguing about $3.33 as the amount this woman provides in terms of food for those on welfare, and this afternoon she's riding the rails and is the biggest spender in town. Fifty thousand dollars a rider! Let's stop and reflect on that. We could put them in houses for free; they wouldn't have to ride anywhere. We'd build those houses on False Creek once Expo disappears, as it will in a handful of months, and we could house the people for that money.

What kind of economic madness does this woman preside over? Absolute economic madness. Fifty thousand dollars per rider, capital cost. Then you put it on the never-never system of payment and you're talking about $100,000. Good Lord, doesn't anybody ever stop and pull back and try, as the economists say, to look at this macro-economically? Who's running the show over there? Who is actually thinking on the broad scale about where this economy is going? Who is making some judgments about expenditures at the broad level? The answer is: absolutely nobody.

Nobody ever puts it together over there. On the one hand you'll be the penurious people who won't provide any more than $3.33 for food for a person on welfare, when we have the highest food costs in the land; then you're the big spenders — $50,000 a rider for your new ALRT system.

MR. PARKS: And how many jobs? You don't care about jobs.

MR. WILLIAMS: We want jobs that are permanent. You guys chase fool's gold every damned time it's put in front of you. You really do. You have no more sense about solid economics than fly. It's supposed to be a businessperson's government, and you always make the wrong business choice.

[4:00]

What more numbers do you need? Fifty thousand dollars a rider, out of the Brunette station, out of the Scott Road station. That is absolutely incredible. No wonder Professor Horwood, the professor of transportation at UW, says.... "Would you extend the system?" He says: "That's the last thing I would do." I couldn't really believe it when he said: "You could house these people. You could put them in housing for what you're spending on the ALRT line." I found that bard to believe, but it's really true. You could house them for what you're spending, you know.

This is the most mixed-up case of priorities I've ever seen. There is nobody in the driver's seat. The whole economy of British Columbia is like your ALRT system: there's nobody in the driver's seat. It's the man-less system; it really is. It's Tron, it's a video arcade, it's incredible. You're running this economy like a video arcade. It just doesn't make any sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: To you.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, and you ask any citizen: would you be willing to put up $50,000 of your money as the entry fee for ALRT? They'd say: "You've got to be crazy." My God, most of them didn't spend that on their house — or it was something like that on their house. This doesn't make any sense — a $50,000 capital cost per rider. Good Lord, you have to reflect about the kind of confusion there is over there.

There isn't any real economic planning going on in British Columbia. The results are there to see. The lineup is at the minister's door: 237,000 individuals on support in terms of welfare; 220,000 on unemployment insurance. That is the end result of ten years of Social Credit economic planning: ten years of your planning and we've got almost half a million people on the dole. No wonder! And you talk about jobs. The jobs are elsewhere. The models are out there for us to check.

[ Page 5992 ]

They're in Scandinavia, in terms of how they deal with unemployment and how they create jobs. The lineup at your door, the half a million people one way or another at your door, is the measure of failure in terms of economic planning on the part of you and your colleagues.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's interesting that the member for Vancouver East continues to be so negative. You know, it's fascinating, because if he had taken the same analogy with the SeaBus, which cost $35 million in 1976 to build, at that time for the capital cost each and every rider on that SeaBus cost $10,000 in 1976 dollars. If you would project that to today's dollars, well, it would be the same analogy that he is trying to make. It's the kind of socialist arithmetic, the mathematics by the socialists.... They love to do that.

So I suppose what the member is really saying indirectly, which he doesn't want to say directly, is that he doesn't believe in public transportation. That's what he's saying. He doesn't believe in the public having public transportation. Because, you see, the only way that you can provide public transportation is by having a capital expense of buying the buses. It doesn't matter if it's the conventional system or the ALRT system. It doesn't matter if it's a SeaBus or a handyDART. It doesn't matter if it's one of the very many conventional systems, the small community systems, that we have in the province.

What this member is saying.... And we know now where the NDP critic on B.C. Transit is coming from. He doesn't want public transportation. It's as simple as that. So what does he want? He's against that. He wants private enterprise to take over all of the transportation. We have made a commitment to public transportation in the province. We have the best ferry service. We have the best conventional bus service. We're very proud of what we have. We're very proud of what we have in services to the handicapped. The small communities were totally ignored in this province before this government took bus transportation systems to the small communities. That member is standing on his feet and saying: "Oh, but each one of those cost X number of dollars per ride for capital investment." Well, you know, looking at it that way, you wouldn't purchase a bus. You would never build a highway. You would never build a hospital, Mr. Chairman. You would never build a school because, you see, if you take the first year's ridership, or if you take the first year's enrolment in a school, and you divide it into the capital budget, which is the socialist mathematics, it's just an impossibility to even credit financing in that way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Therefore I suppose most members in this House can make the analogy. Would the member who has just taken his seat pay $18,000 for a seat in this House? Would he do that? Did he do that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I just say to you that it's an analogy. It's socialist mathematics that this member wants to put before the people of this province — through this House and to the people in the gallery — to try to somehow come out of this thing. He knows that the ALRT is a good investment. He knows that, but he wants to muddy the waters and make it sound as though it isn't. That's the way this argument is going today. But it's a foolish argument, and it is one that doesn't stand the test of time in any other area of government. So if you're not for public transportation, get up and say so. Don't say it that way.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the simple never-never world of the other side, they say you're either for a public transportation system or against it. We're for a system that isn't going to cost us the world. You know the Expo slogan — the world. We have a system here that's costing us the world, and extending it will cost us that much again.

San Diego has built a system that cost $3.3 million a kilometre. We have a system that's costing $33 million plus per kilometre — ten times the cost. You know, it isn't that kind of world. There are rational decision-makers across this continent that have opted for different systems, opted for systems that will cost less and do the job. The people in San Diego made that decision — $3 million — 10 percent per kilometre. You opted for a system that would cost ten times what they paid for a system in San Diego. The one in Edmonton is something like nine, etc. You've made that kind of decision.

What we're saying is that if you're going to serve all of the people of British Columbia well, then you have to pick a system that's less costly; otherwise the service won't be available. I think that's the simple reality. The member for Port Moody talks about using the existing rail lines on the north side of the valley. He says the cost is one-thirtieth or one-fiftieth of this system. Isn't that worth some serious thought?

MR. PARKS: What about the operational costs?

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, the operational costs. Labour. How much of an in-depth marketing analysis have you made? Those apartment buildings in New Westminster, primarily with elderly people in them and many of them single widows, in terms of my familiarity with that community.... You ask them if they're willing to ride on this unmanned system. The ones I've talked to are not very positive about it.

Elderly women from New Westminster are concerned about an unmanned system. The other line is in Scarborough. They made the decision that it had to be a manned system. Despite the technology, they made that decision. So one wonders if in the end you aren't going to have to review this decision anyway in terms of manning the system. The ridership may well require and demand that it be a manned system. That takes care of your operating costs pretty quickly.

You know, $50,000 a rider for this system, and the minister of welfare is the one that's guiding it through. Isn't it an incredible juxtaposition, that this penurious government, when it comes to looking after people in need, can handle $50,000 a rider with respect to the ALRT system.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the member who has just taken his place makes a comment about the San Diego plan and other plans, and the ones that he mentioned. The San Diego program carries at maximum 4,000 people per hour. That's the maximum at their very height. When they get to that 4,000 point, that's it; they have to put a new service in. The capacity of the systems that you have mentioned in the United States, and the ones

[ Page 5993 ]

that are currently on the drawing boards.... We've looked at them all, and we've looked at the cost projections. We looked at the capital costs, and also the ridership, and all of those would not have met the demand that we have and will have in the city of Vancouver and the greater Vancouver area.

Then there was his comment: shouldn't we be giving serious thought to commuter rail? What made this member think in any way that I'm not giving serious thought to it? I thought that I had assured the member for Coquitlam-Moody that, indeed, not only have we been considering sitting down with the federal administration, but we are also doing an overall study of that area, along with others, that will be ready in the next few weeks — and we will have full discussion with the federal administration on that subject. I've given that commitment. I not only gave it on the floor of this House, but I've given it to the federal administration as well.

MR. GABELMANN: Since the minister and members on that side of the House want us all to be positive, may I ask the minister if I can phone the people in Campbell River this afternoon and say that she has given the okay for the installation of the handyDART system in Campbell River?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm quite aware of the submission that has been made. There are several municipalities who have made the same submission. They go, as you know, to the B.C. Transit board. Those decisions will be made by that board. They are not within this budget, but they will perhaps be in the budget to follow; that will be up to the board. They have the submission from that area well in hand.

MR. GABELMANN: Can the minister tell me if no further extensions are being planned for handyDART services at the present time, and if that's so, when that "freeze" will be lifted?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry, I misled you just a little. Those small communities' budgets are being reviewed at the present time by B.C. Transit. We may be in a position in the fall of this year to make announcements regarding some of those small communities, including that one.

MS. BROWN: This morning we were dealing with the 237,000 — give or take a couple of hundred — people in receipt of income assistance. At that time the minister explained that there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 who were in the Individual Opportunity Plan and the job action program, which is a part of that, and who would be holding down successful jobs. My colleague from North Island asked for a specific figure. The minister has had an hour for lunch and an hour to rest, and a couple of hours to think about transit while her department was compiling those figures. I wonder if we could go back now and start getting some information — hard data, numbers — from the minister about the job that she's doing in terms of helping people get off income assistance and back into the workforce.

[4:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't have anything more than what I gave you this morning. If you're expecting anything further than that, I think that specifics would have to be put on the order paper, and I would be glad to put the answers on the order paper.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I explained this morning, and my colleagues did too, that the reason we were asking these questions is that we've not had the privilege of seeing an annual report since 1982-83, and this is now 1985. If we are to scrutinize the minister's job, to find out whether in fact she is working on behalf of that area of the constituency — namely, poor people, the disabled, the old, children and other people in need — she is supposed to be, we have no alternative but to question her during her estimates, which is what we are doing now. We want to know what's happening in terms of the 70 percent she tells us are coming off income assistance as a result of the Individual Opportunity Plan. We want some figures.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member always wants to confuse the job action program and the Individual Opportunity Plan. Please know that they are two different programs. The Individual Opportunity Plan is, if you like, a smorgasbord of services; they are choices that you can take, one of which is the job action program. The job action program is the one in which somewhere close to seven out of ten who take it — and this is a short course; the course is about three weeks — find a job in less than a month. That is the success rate of that program.

As for the success rate of the Individual Opportunity Plan, that is a little more difficult to define. It is difficult to define because people go in and out of social assistance as they need it. So persons who take an individual opportunity plan today, which is truly an agreement between our office and them, will be in an educational service. They will stay in that seat and get the education which will give them the tools to get them to work, or they will use the equipment we buy them in order to give them some training at home, and they will use it and learn it and then go out into the job market, or they will use the extra boots, hard hats, tools, and all of the things required to get them a job that they already have out of town, but that's what's stopping them from connecting with the job. That may be just a very small investment, but it's an investment which allows them the transportation and the equipment, the clothes and things to go to that job. There may be any number of things. Some job opportunity plans will take two years, others will take three weeks. Some would maybe just be the decision to provide the clothing or the transportation to a job that the client has already found but is prohibited from taking because it is somewhere in another part of the province. We think that's a good investment, and we do it.

Now when you say you would like the figures for those, the best figures we can give you are those that go off income assistance, because that is success. If they go off income assistance and get into independent living, then it means that they are no longer needing us. If by chance they come back on again, that's what gets confusing. In nine months they may be out of that job because it's a seasonal job, and they may well come back to us. First they probably would go to unemployment insurance, but somewhere down the line we might see them again. That's what makes it confusing to give you those hard figures.

I can assure you that the Individual Opportunity Plan is working. We could spend our time getting the figures you want, but it would still end up that when people go off income assistance, whether they took the Individual Opportunity Plan or the job action program, or simply were successful finding a job on their own, that's a success. That's what we

[ Page 5994 ]

count a success, because we want them to have the opportunity to work like everybody else that we'd like to have working.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to move to some local concerns in the Okanagan and bring out a few salient points about the problems there, as well as some specific requests of the minister.

The statistics on income assistance caseload by region from MHR show an increase in income assistance between 1983 and 1985 of 14 percent in the Okanagan and 12 percent in the Kootenays. Both increased significantly in the last couple of years. In addition, I might bring to the minister's attention that both in Kelowna and in the Vernon area the demand on the local organizations such as the food banks have increased quite significantly. I might point out that in the Kelowna area in the first few months of this year the demand for hampers from the food bank has almost tripled over that time period in 1984; so much so that they have had to put a limit or a cap on the number of recipients per month. They've capped that at 1,000. The demand is far exceeding those limitations. We've got some significant problems up there. I might point out to the minister that in the Okanagan Valley we presently have an unemployment rate of approximately 20 percent. Things are certainly in a tight position up there, and a lot of people are hurting and have been hurting for some time.

I might also point out — this is a table taken from the National Council of Welfare estimates, the low income lines for 1985 — that in a town the size of Vernon, less than 30,000, the misery line, I guess you could call it, for a single person is about $8,400, for two people it is about $11,000, for three people it is about $14,800, and for a family of four about $17,000. When you look at the income assistance rates for those same categories, they are dramatically less, almost one-half of those poverty lines. I think it points out that the amount of money received by income assistance clientele throughout the province is far below their realistic needs. I would like to read into the record a letter from the Okanagan South Women's Association, in the Penticton area.

"Many women in this area are taking drastic measures in their own way to deal with their poverty. Some women have attempted suicide, some women have given up all hope and have resorted to another reality, that of the psychiatric ward. Others brave the unknown and deal as best they can with their terrible situations, resorting to food banks, soup-kitchens and clothing handouts. Many have lost their homes, and more will do so unless these rates are increased."

In a final appeal to the minister over the signature of Hilma LaBelle, it says:

"We urge the minister to raise the welfare rates to the established poverty line."

I have another letter that I'd like to point out from the central Okanagan Elizabeth Fry Society. It states:

"Most British Columbians dependent on welfare must exist on an income of only half the poverty level. In addition, many services — family support workers, women's centres, advocacy groups, renter's grant, EDP and CIP programs, rent control have been abolished. Yet the cost of living has increased by 11.4 percent since 1982, when last the welfare rates were increased. Our agency's workers report a marked increase in poverty-related crimes: theft, fraud, etc."

Under the signature of Margaret Sanders, it appeals to the minister to consider an increase in the present welfare rates.

I have been in attendance at previous sessions, but with the lack of response to questions, I'm not really sure if this issue was addressed or not. I would like to ask the minister to clarify for this side of the House what her intentions are and what the plans of the ministry are in terms of bringing the income assistance at least to a tolerable level in this province.

I'll sit down now and let the minister answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you for the question. To the member for Okanagan North, that question is before us at all times. As you know, the amount of income assistance that is being paid out now in the province is very close to $1 billion. We are serving more people, and that is why there haven't been any increases. There is a possibility.... We always hope that there will be more money forthcoming and that there will be fewer people drawing on the fund in the next budgetary year. But at this point in time, in response to the question regarding this year, there will be no increases this year in this budget. I know the member knows that, because we just passed the budget in this House, or at least we're dealing with the present budget. But we always hope that in the years to come there will be more dollars provided as we can afford to. All members in this House wish that. We hope that because there will probably be fewer people on welfare, that possibility will prevail.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I think the fact of a quarter of a million people on welfare, as well as about the equivalent number of people on unemployment insurance, certainly has caused severe strain on the delivery of income assistance. I have no qualms with that argument whatsoever.

I think it's incumbent upon this government to realize that it's a social responsibility. Its priority responsibility in its mandate with the people of this province is to provide a basic level of assistance for those less fortunate in this province, who are really under the gun at this point and have been for some time, with very bleak futures. It's something that I think has been remiss. It has needed to be addressed before this. I'm disappointed that there are no programs in effect in terms of boosting that assistance.

I want to turn at this point to another situation — a very local situation. I'll just brief the minister on it — she may be aware of it or may not. A particular individual in the eastern part of the riding of North Okanagan — over in the Edgewood area, which is in the Arrow Lakes area — is on disability pension and has had to seek physiotherapy in the Vernon hospital for the back disability that he's currently suffering. The therapy at this point is very critical in order for him to alleviate the problem. The problem he faces is that being on the pension, he cannot afford the cost of travel, which is about 80 miles back and forth over the Monashee highway. He cannot afford the cost of that regular visitation. Apparently the local MHR has refused to pay or even consider the payment or partial payment of any of the transportation costs. This particular individual is in a catch-22 situation. He can't afford to make the visitations and if he doesn't make the visitations, he can't secure the treatment that he necessarily needs, and I wonder if the minister can suggest any way around this present impasse.

[4:30]

[ Page 5995 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, we do have a program which can cover some forms of medical transportation. If the member would give me that specific case, I can have it looked into individually. I'd be pleased to do that.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I will be quite happy to supply the information to the minister and will do so at the conclusion of the other points that I would like to make. The situation in regard to the closure of Tranquille. A number of individual cases have been brought to my attention, some of them from the Kootenays and some from the Okanagan area, in terms of the displacement of individuals from the Tranquille institution down to the Glendale institution. I would like to read into the record a letter from the Kootenay Society for the Handicapped, which I think outlines the salient argument that is the critical issue here. I'll just begin here:

"On behalf of the six people from the Kootenays who currently reside at Tranquille and have been labelled extended-care eligible, we wish to express our deep disappointment and united opposition to your decision to transfer all people with this label to Glendale. Mrs. McCarthy, we feel you have betrayed these people and their families. Your decision is in direct contradiction to all the commitments made in your open letter dated December 9."

It states a number of interesting points. It says:

"You have promised the closure will be achieved through consultation. The fact: families have been totally left out of this critical decision. You have promised each resident will be placed as near to their own family's community as possible. The fact: Glendale is 700 kilometres away from the families in our area. You have promised: 'Our first concern has always been the best interests of the resident.' The fact: this decision and its impact is not in the best interests of these individual people."

The criticism goes on. The particular case that I would like to bring to the minister's attention is the case of a Mr. Michael Chernakoff. This lad has been in Tranquille for 15 years; he entered when he was 14. The family were unable to cope; they didn't have much disposable income. He is one of those individuals who have been moved to Glendale. Interestingly enough, when the parents were first notified, they were told that their concerns about the move of the member of their family.... They needn't be concerned about it; he would be taken into the community. A letter from one of the local social workers reads: "This memo is to inform you that the community placement planning for Michael Chernakoff will now take place in region 3." In other words, there was every intention that he would be placed in the community where the family resides. Now what has happened is that a decision has come about where instead of being placed in the community in the Okanagan area, Michael has been moved to Glendale. The family is extremely upset about it. They have made a number of appeals to the minister on their concerns and as yet have not had any successful conclusion of what they consider to be a very critical situation.

I would ask if the minister is aware of the case, whether there can be a reconsideration of the placement of this individual in Glendale, and whether we can reconsider putting him into the appropriate facilities: that is, closer to the family in the Okanagan area.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, this whole question of the institutionalization of Tranquille is one which I said yesterday, and I say again today, this government is very proud of. We're very pleased with what we did. I'm very proud of the staff that carried it out because, contrary to what the member for Okanagan North said just a few minutes ago, there has been much consultation. There has been consultation with parents and consultation between professionals, parents and even in some cases the residents themselves.

For the very few that could not make the move.... Perhaps the member for Okanagan North did not visit Tranquille when it was a going concern. Perhaps he would not know that there were some patients or clients in the Tranquille facility who had 24-hour medical care. To say that each of them could be in a small community resource.... That was an impossibility to achieve. Considering that we had a staff of 650 and a population of 325 in Tranquille, and all of it was wound down within 18 months, and most of those clients were put in community-based resources, that is a fantastic accomplishment by my staff — an absolutely fantastic accomplishment.

You may be bringing forward.... I know the case to which you refer; I know all of those cases quite well. I want to tell you that the decision was not mine to make — whether or not those few that were not medically able to transfer to a community-based resource.... That was not mine to make, nor would I want to take on that responsibility; with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, nor should the member wish to take on that responsibility, because frankly that's beyond our capability.

[Mr. Ree in the chair]

The decision as to whether Glendale becomes the home or whether a community-based resource becomes the home has to do with medical advice. Each one of the individuals in Tranquille was medically assessed, and they were assessed in many other ways as well. But it was found that those with multiple problems, in cases such as the one that you named and others that are in Glendale today, could not be moved into a community-based resource. It was impossible to do so, because the attention, the care and the 24-hour assistance that they need for their specific demands was such that they had to be moved to Glendale.

Let me just say a word about Glendale. We're very proud of Glendale. I too have visited Glendale on more than one occasion. I have talked to the staff, and I have seen the program which they put forward for their residents. They do have a very good program, and one which I think that if the parents of that young person, that adult, would view, they would be very pleased about.

Now to address your concerns as to whether or not the family should be physically near, in most cases that's exactly what we've done with the depopulation of Tranquille. We have placed the resident, the mentally handicapped family member, close to their home.

In this case, if I recall it.... Correct me if I'm wrong. It really doesn't matter: if you need medical attention, and you have to be in the lower mainland and your home happens to be in Prince George, you get your medical attention in the lower mainland where the doctor orders it to be. But in this case, I believe, the father lives in Surrey. I believe the father is closer to this person you named than he was when Michael was in Kamloops. However, that really isn't the point. The point is

[ Page 5996 ]

that if the service which will assist the life of that mentally handicapped person to be better is better in Glendale, then you should be the first to jump to your feet to commend the government for doing so.

May I give you the opposite scenario. If anything happened to any of those whom we transferred to a community-based resource because they were unfit to be in one, and we flew in the face of the medical advice and the Health ministry's, which I have no right to do, nor will I — I have a moral obligation not to — I can imagine the hue and cry. If in spite of the medical advice we moved them to a community-based resource, a private home in a community, and then something happened to that person because they did not have the medical attention that was needed, I would just imagine what this debate would be.

So I say to you: you have to, in this position, rely on professional advice. Sometimes that professional advice is not what some parents wish to hear. But those same parents would be very critical if we put their child at risk, and in this case they were adults, as you know. If we put them at risk, because they are our responsibility, those parents have.... Because they are over 19, they are the responsibility of the province, and we take that responsibility very seriously. We could not move them to the place that they desired, because we would be putting that person at risk. I hope you understand that.

Now may I say this too. The door is not closed at Glendale for any of the residents of Glendale. Glendale gives a very good service. The staff there have patience and a commitment to their work that is second to none. But if there is any patient in that Glendale hospital, and there have been many, that has made the transition to the community-based resource.... If there is any possibility of doing that, that patient will be transferred. So it's not a closed door at Glendale.

The hope is still there that we may be able to bring that particular person you asked after, and some of the others that are there.... I think now there are somewhere around 46 or 47 patients out of 325 in an institution with patients and staff numbering 1,000. Out of that, 46 patients — somewhere around that; it may be less than that now if some have already been moved to Glendale — are at Glendale. So I think that's an extremely good accomplishment, one that I think would be lauded by the members of the opposition, and by the members on this side of the House.

You see, Mr. Chairman, mentally handicapped is not something that should be in any way a political discussion. We should never take the handicapped and make them pawns in a political game. If there was any intimation by that member that there's some reason.... For example, why would we take 46 people and leave them in Glendale? Why would we want to do that? We moved 275-plus out of Tranquille, so what good reason would there be to just isolate that 46 and put them into Glendale? You must know there's some good reason, so to even ask the question sort of says that you don't understand that. But I want you to understand that their life is enriched, because they have a good program at Glendale. They have the opportunity of moving out, and they're in a much more modern facility, a better facility than the one they left — not in terms of equal commitment of staff, but certainly in the physical plant.

In that vein, I'd like to say that I have a sheaf of letters from people who are very happy that their patients are being looked after well. This letter is to do with Glendale. I'm sorry, I can't give you the place; the name is taken out on purpose. But it is a letter addressed to myself, which says:

"I thought it would be appropriate to write and tell you, as a parent of a severely handicapped adult who was recently transferred from Tranquille to Glendale Lodge, that here is one mother who is happy with the decision. Even before the decision was made to move him, I was in contact with my social worker and he knew that I was not in agreement at all with this patient being placed in a group home.

"While my husband was living we visited our son regularly and knew he was receiving excellent care from the staff at Tranquille, and certainly did not hesitate to tell them so. I was up to Tranquille twice this year before his move, and when I looked at the various patients, all cerebral palsy people, I just couldn't see where they could be adequately cared for in a group home. Last week was my first opportunity to go over to Vancouver Island and I spent two days in Victoria in order to go out to Glendale Lodge and see for myself the facilities they have there. I came home with a happy heart and knew the right decision had been made. The facilities are excellent, the residences bright and cheerful. Above all, the staff are very kind and considerate. It sure made me feel good knowing he was getting the same care he received in Tranquille."

She goes on to say much about the physical plant at Glendale and how nice it is. She says:

"Just to hear two members of the staff, when I was introduced as Kenneth's mother, and the spontaneous reaction of how they enjoyed looking after Kenneth, made me feet very grateful."

This letter is from an appreciative parent. There are many appreciative parents who have their children or their young adults at Glendale, so I'd like the member to know, on behalf of his constituent — the member's comment on his constituent — that it is a good place for that constituent to be.

[4:45]

MR. MacWILLIAM: My goodness, I think I hit a nerve there somewhere. The depth of the response indicates that the minister is certainly very sensitive about that area, and I would like to clarify with the minister that I totally agree with the decision to deinstitutionalize. I wasn't trying to criticize that in the least. I think that is the direction we should be taking. I don't quite understand the rebuttal in terms of that issue. I certainly have no qualms about Glendale as an institution. I think the minister misread my point.

What I would like to clarify with the minister is not the process of deinstitutionalizing or the process of transferring to Glendale, but rather the possibility that the assessment for this particular individual may have been incorrect. That is the issue. There's no political agenda here. I brought up an issue of great concern to that family which has asked me to press the minister on this issue; they are deeply concerned. That's my reason for bringing it up.

The decisions to place those patients in Glendale rather than into community facilities is apparently, from reading the records, based on mobility impairments of those individuals and the need for attendant care. That is the ministerial position. The family believes this assessment is incorrect. They have cited a number of reasons why they feel it's incorrect, without going into the details here.

[ Page 5997 ]

In addition to that, the North Okanagan Community Life Society has investigated the particular situation of Michael Chernakoff. They feel that the assessment by the ministry has been incorrect. I'll read it into the record. It's under the signature of Llowyn Osachuk, administrator, North Okanagan Community Life Society, and it says: "I'm appealing to you" — this is to the minister — "to at least review the cases individually" — she's referring to a couple of cases, but in particular the Chernakoff case — "and to, if at all possible, meet the individuals these decisions are being made for. All of the parents of those concerned expressed very definite wishes as they would like to see planned for their son or daughter."

So there's the assessment here that there may be errors in the assessment of this particular individual. I'm not being critical of the deinstitutionalizing process, but I am asking the minister if she would at least have a look at this case, review the details of the case and reassess it on the merits of the argument, and if she would do that at the earliest opportunity, because this issue has dragged on for some time now.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, a couple of things. First of all, it is not the case with the Surrey father, so let's.... I know that now, yes. I know the case now that we're talking about, and we've had a couple of them where the family has not been happy with the decision. This is one where the family is not happy because they feel that Michael can do fine in an independent situation with some group home support.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sorry I.... In spite of the letters — and they may be even from some professional; you did mention a life skills society. They are not necessarily professional in the life skills society. They belong to that organization as volunteers, and they could do anything. But the professionals have told us that Michael's case is such that he cannot be left alone in the total 24 hours of the day. He cannot be left alone; he needs supervision.

I don't really want to go through the medical — although I have it here, and I'd be glad to share it with the member — because he's named the patient, but let me say that the family has been in close consultation with us all the way along. There were choices, and they went down to see Glendale. There were choices they had. They had an extended-care facility, which would have meant extended care probably closer to their home, but they opted for Glendale because it offered so many more services for him.

So when it comes to a question of whether we should put a patient or a client near home or not, we would opt of course for the best service for the client, rather than whether there is proximity to the parent. We're serving the client. We automatically serve the family, because we have alleviated the day-to-day care from that family. Of course we serve that family, and we're very cognizant of their concern. We like to involve them, and, thankfully, this is a family that wants to be involved. Many times they don't want to be involved, and those are the saddest cases of all. But I can assure you that this case has been well assessed, and if the opportunity comes when we can move him out of Glendale, we certainly will. But at this present time, there doesn't seem to be any better place than Glendale. There is certainly not an individual situation that we could provide for him.

It isn't just a question, I have to tell you, about an easy transition from bed to wheelchair. That argument comes up quite often. It is not a question of whether or not he's mobile enough on his own. It's his multiple health problems, his seizures and all of the other things which require the 24-hour care. I cannot commit to you, I'm sorry; I cannot do that. I haven't got that kind of expertise. I don't plan to play God in this House and say that you....

We've looked into it and looked into it. This family has had tremendous service from our ministry. Michael is in the very best place he can be at this present time. We will work with the family over the months to come to see if there is anything better than we can offer. But I want you to know he has good care where he is now. I think that the family accepts that, and from what I understand from my ministry staff, the family has accepted that and has worked with our ministry.

I know that they won't ever be satisfied until he is in a group living situation with other young people. I appreciate that and I relate to that, but I can't give you a commitment that I can do that, because I don't have it within my jurisdiction to do that. We have to look after his health and his medical needs and his well-being. To put that at risk, I can't give you a commitment that I would do.

MS. BROWN: From the length of the minister's responses, I can tell we're going to be here for months.

I would like to continue to talk a little bit about the inadequacy of the GAIN rates. The minister indicated to my colleague that that's it until April 1986. In April 1982 the rate was set for a single individual — $3.33 a day for food — and that amount would decline, depending upon the size of the family, to something like $2 and some cents if it were a family of, say, five, six or seven people. The minister is saying that despite the increase in the cost of living, despite the increase in transportation, housing, utilities and every other cost, that $3.33 a day maximum is going to stay in place until April 1986. I am hoping that either she made a mistake or I heard her incorrectly, because I can't believe that the minister is really going to condemn those people in need, who have to receive income assistance — and that number is growing from 9.4 percent of families to something like 14 percent — to another year of having not even enough money to starve on, because $3.33 is below starvation wages.

I costed it out for the minister and showed that if she were prepared to go to a discount grocery store and buy stale bread and old food, on $3.33 she could afford a loaf of stale bread, some margarine, a tin of soup, a tin of spaghetti and one fruit — either an apple or an orange — and that was all. And that's the maximum. If it's a family of two or three, that figure goes down to $3 and then down to $2.43, and it keeps decreasing as the size of the family gets larger. Now the minister is telling us that that figure is going to stay in place until April 1986. This is the minister, I might remind you, who found half a million dollars to throw a cocktail party a couple of nights ago to celebrate the opening of Expo. As my colleague from Vancouver East pointed out, she can find $50,000 per rider to extend the ALRT line, but is condemning poor people who need her services to one more year of having to live below a starvation diet.

The minister says that she doesn't establish nutritional guides, that she doesn't set diets. That's done by the Ministry of Health, and quite rightly so. The Ministry of Health has established a basic minimum that people need to live on, and it's a very basic minimum, because it says that a single adult male can actually live on $153.77 per month. That's about as basic as you can get. Yet under this minister's rate, if that

[ Page 5998 ]

person is under the age of 25 the amount of money to spend is $100.

The minister likes to stand up and speak about the size of the income assistance budget — that it's over a billion dollars. It's that way as a direct result of her government's actions. There are a quarter of a million people on income assistance in this province today. In a cynical, crass and cruel manner that minister has budgeted for an increase in the number of people who are going to be on income assistance for the coming year because, whereas her estimates have slashed services to the disabled, children and everyone else, the budget for income assistance has increased. Now if the rates aren't going to go up, that must mean that the number of people the minister anticipates will need income assistance is going to increase. And that, I think, is a very cynical and cruel approach to this whole matter.

[5:00]

The reason we were pursuing the individual opportunities question and the job action question was that we recognize that the only hope for people on income assistance is to get off as fast as they possibly can. It is not humanly possible, even though people are doing it — in an affluent province, in an affluent country — for anyone to be able to eat properly on $3.33 a day. Proof of that has been indicated by the number of food banks and soup kitchens which have sprung up around this province during this minister's tenure — not under the previous minister, as tight as things were under Mr. Vander Zalm when he was the minister responsible, nor under other ministers. We've never had, not since the Great Depression, the need for food banks and soup-kitchens in this province until this minister became responsible.

There were 80,000 people on income assistance in 1976. There are nearly a quarter of a million people on income assistance in 1985. In less than ten years there has been an increase of close to 300 percent. That's what we're living with in this province, and there is an indication in the estimates that the minister is expecting that number to increase even more — budgeting for an increase, not in the rates but in the number of people on income assistance.

It's worse than that, because even though the minister says I should not pay any attention to the Ministry of Human Resources guidebook or manual, everyone else in the field does, so this is the only guideline that you have. What we find is that the earnings exemptions that people are allowed who want to get off income assistance and do work part-time or otherwise.... The earnings exemption of $100 a month which they were permitted to keep before it was deducted from their income assistance cheque — that figure has also been frozen and has not been increased for a number of years. I can't remember the exact number of years, but I am sure if my researcher is listening that date will be coming to me pretty quickly. I know it was $100 in 1984 and 1983 and when the last annual report came down in 1982-83. A single person was allowed to have $50 a month, but if that person were disabled that amount went up to $100 a month. So even if you want to get off income assistance and you do find a job, after the first $50 it's all taken away from you anyway.

It's the meanness about the way this ministry handles income assistance that really gets you down. I don't know if you know it, but people in receipt of income assistance get a Christmas bonus from this government of 20 bucks. They get $20 to buy a turkey and some cranberry sauce, a little bit of breadcrumbs to make some stuffing, and maybe the odd toy. That's their big Christmas present from this government. If it's a family of three or four or five or six, they have $50 to buy this turkey and this little bit of cranberry sauce and maybe even some vegetables, for the first time all year.

But do you think everybody gets it? Not on your life. If a child in the care of this ministry is placed in a foster home of a relative, that $20 is taken away from that child. That child is deprived of that lousy, measly 20 bucks because the foster home is a home of a relative. If that person reaches the age of 60, if it's a couple.... I want to read into the record a letter written by a gentleman in Victoria:

"Dear Mrs. McCarthy:

"We were shocked and disappointed to learn that since we've become 60 years old we are no longer eligible for the Christmas supplement. We were told that the decision to exclude people like us was made at a time when people over 60 made substantially more than the usual income assistance recipient. As this situation has now changed, we feel the policy must be changed to make it more fair. People between the ages of 60 and 64 should be granted the Christmas supplement because they receive the same rate as younger people who are also eligible for the supplement.

"We hope to hear from you on this matter soon, as Christmas is drawing closer, and it does create more expenses for us."

This letter was written to her in December of last year. So even the lousy $20 is taken away from you once you hit the age of 60, if you are a child in the foster home of a relative, if you are in personal care, intermediate care or long-term care, or if you are staying in an emergency shelter. Battered women and their children in a transition house at Christmas are not eligible for the lousy 20 bucks. You can't be meaner than that: deprived of a normal home setting at Christmas, forced to go into a transition house; forced to go into an emergency shelter because of violence in the home, and those children are deprived of that lousy $50 to that family that the mother could probably use — maybe not to buy a turkey or some stuffing but to buy some toys for those children. It's the meanness about the way in which this minister administers the department, and the policies of this ministry, that really get you down.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When my colleague for Comox talks about grinding poverty, it's not the poverty that grinds you down; it's the policies of the ministry that grind you down. As though that's not enough, the old question of discrimination based on age has to be dealt with. The younger you are, the more food you eat; the more you need, the less you get. If you're single and you're under 25, your income assistance rate is reduced. You're penalized for being young. That, Mr. Chairman, is in direct contravention of the Charter, and will have to be tested before the courts. It hasn't worked.... When the people have appealed to the Human Rights Commission, the government wipes out the Human Rights Commission. When an appeal is made to the ombudsman, it's ignored. Well, now we have the Charter to deal with; and that is where it is going to be dealt with.

The CIP, the lousy $50 a month that people had to go to court to fight for. Even though the court ruled that they should be paid, do you know what the minister did? Those people who filed an appeal were going to get their $50 retroactively;

[ Page 5999 ]

and those people who didn't file an appeal, even though they're eligible, are not going to get it.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I thought I was. Oh, I didn't tell the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. However, just briefly, estimates do provide for one statement of 30 minutes during each estimate in Committee of Supply, from either side of the House. The minister has had that opportunity, and it's afforded now to the official opposition. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You broke my trend of thought. At my age, it's hard to deal with these interruptions.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, that's true. I admit it, but I still have my hair. No offence meant, Mr. Chairman.

The dietary allowance hasn't been increased. Do you know what the dietary allowance is? It's for pregnant mothers or people who need a special diet. That hasn' t been increased since this government took office in 1976, yet everything else has gone up. Every food item on a special diet has increased in price, yet the dietary allowance hasn't been increased.

The incentive allowance. If you read the annual report of the ministry for 1975, that was the date when the exemptions on earnings were placed at $50 a month for a single person and $100 for a person with dependents. That was ten years ago, and that has not changed. It is still the same: $50 for a single person, and $100 if it's a family or a person with dependents. That's the kind of thing that makes it difficult to deal with the ministry. It doesn't understand that over ten years, when its government is increasing transportation rates, hydro rates, taxes and all kinds of other expenses, hidden and otherwise...that a rate set in 1975 should still hold.

I don't suppose there's any point in carrying on with the inadequacies of the income assistance rates which the minister is administering. I want to just add a little bit. I know I'm not supposed to discuss education here, but I just want to add a little bit about some research done in six Vancouver schools about some of the kids who show up in the school system. It turns out that at one of the schools a number of the kids show up without breakfast — 20 percent to 25 percent in one school. In the second school, a third of the children in the school live below the poverty line. Most of those are children of single parents. A total of 105 of the the 250 kids enrolled are not on income assistance, so figure it out; that means that 145, I guess, are on income assistance. A number of these have been identified as abused children, and also 120 of them live in subsidized housing.

What they've had to do in a number of these schools is pool the lunches of those children who do bring lunches, so as to share it with the kids who don't. The teachers themselves have to bring additional juice and milk so that during lunch hour some of these children are fed. These are the kids, Mr. Chairman, whose families are dependent on income assistance and who, in addition, have to use the food bank in the Vancouver area — a food bank, incidentally, which tells us that it is distributing something in the area of 3,000 bags of food each month.

[5:15]

Really, I believe that the most serious responsibility that the Minister of Human Resources has is to the children. I recognize that it's possible that disabled people may be able to get help from the community in other ways, and the same thing with senior citizens, and the same thing with abused women. But children have no one to speak for them and no one to defend them. That's why the minister, in her role as superintendent of child welfare, along with the deputy minister, as protector of children, has a very serious responsibility as far as the children are concerned.

How does she discharge this responsibility? She started out by eliminating the family support worker program, then the streetworker program, then the specialized child abuse team, and one by one she went down. What we are finding when we speak to workers in the field is that they are now dealing with crisis management rather than ongoing support services or prevention. It's taking them longer to respond to child abuse complaints, and more children are being left in unhappy and unsuitable situations.

I certainly don't need to bring that to the attention of this House, because it's very rarely that a week goes by that there isn't one more story in the media about the failure of the Ministry of Human Resources either to check a foster home carefully or to apprehend the child quickly enough.

The incompetent way in which she has been discharging her responsibility to the children in care is resulting in very.... Some of these kids are dying, quite frankly, as a result of it. We are told that more and more children are running away from home, and that 58.6 percent of the kids on the street are sexually exploited either at home or once they hit the street. A very large percentage of them are in the care of the Ministry of Human Resources.

I wonder if the minister, in responding, would tell me exactly how many of the child prostitutes in this province are wards of the Ministry of Human Resources. I know she has that figure. I want to know exactly how many of them are.

Mr. Chairman, not a word was raised when the ESL program, on which so many of these kids are dependent, was wiped out and its funding decreased by the Ministry of Education. You know, the statistics go on and on about the implications of the budget, what it's doing to the kids, and the number of children not just in Vancouver but in Surrey. I was sure that the member for Surrey, the parliamentary secretary, was going to stand up and talk about the gangs in Surrey and how many of those children are in fact wards of the Ministry of Human Resources.

I know that the cost of child care in British Columbia is high, No one says you can care for kids cheaply. But in terms of establishing one's priority, Mr. Chairman, I think that some priority should be given to this ministry, to the care of children.

There's been an increase in the number of child abuse cases reported to the ministry, and at the same time there's been a decrease in the number of people working on this area. Certainly there's been a decrease in the number of social workers in the system at a time when the caseload is on the increase.

Day care. In order for the Individual Opportunity Plan to work, there's got to be day care for those people who want to take advantage of this system. We find the very opposite is happening: there is not readily available child care for children under the age of three. There still isn't. It wasn't there in 1976 when this government took office; it's still not readily available. Single parents who can find shift work or who have

[ Page 6000 ]

to work evenings and on weekends are finding that it is not possible to find adequate day care.

The subsidy level is not meeting the real cost, the true cost, of child care, certainly not in the city of Vancouver, in Burnaby or in surrounding areas. More and more, single parents are finding that they are having to subsidize the childcare costs, and the result is that fewer and fewer parents are able to make good, safe, adequate provision for their children when they go to work. More and more single parents are finding that the incentive to get off income assistance is not there, because there isn't adequate child care.

Mr. Speaker, I raise the issue of the subsidy. I raise the issue of the exemption — the basic allowable exemption to qualify for subsidy has not been increased since 1982. We're dealing with history here. It's as though this ministry went into a deep-freeze in 1982 and hasn't moved since then. Nothing, no improvement; it's just gone backwards. No increase, no improved services; just cutbacks, eliminations, wipeouts, and more and more the children in her care are being placed at risk. The basic allowable income exemption has not been increased since 1982.

A number of recommendations were put to the minister by the British Columbia Day Care Action Coalition, and they haven't been dealt with. Here is another letter from Victoria, dated February 15, 1985: "As a parent of two children under the age of five and a licensed preschool teacher in the province of British Columbia with eight years of experience in day care, I am horrified to hear of the possibility of physical and sexual abuse happening in day-care centres. How can this happen? Where are the inspectors, and what's wrong with the licensing standards?"

Now everyone knows that the Community Care Facility Act, which used to have a section which made it compulsory that these establishments be inspected at least once a year, was amended by that government over there and now compulsory inspection is not needed any more. So we are having problems with standards, and what is the minister doing about that? We are told by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) that the entire act is under scrutiny, that it's going to be improved, hopefully. But until then children in these facilities will still not receive the kind of protection they would have if mandatory inspection were still in place. There are two sides to this story, of course, because on the other side of the story are some of these facilities who have their licences whipped out from under them with no explanation given as to what the case is.

So very briefly, Mr. Chairman, that is child care. I wanted to touch on some questions I have on services to the mentally retarded and the mentally disabled which my colleague for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) didn't deal with, and maybe the minister would be able to answer some of these questions for me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it might be appropriate to have an intervening speaker at this time.

MR. COCKE: In order to permit my colleague the extension she requires to finish her statement, I would like to intervene.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have just reflected on a speech that I think I've heard the minister give for over a decade. You know, most politicians like to give good speeches if they can be retreaded and trotted out again. Why not? We're so well-rehearsed at them we can almost give them without thinking. I'm sure the minister wouldn't give a speech without thinking, but maybe it does happen on occasion.

The subject that intrigued me was this. On radio recently I heard the minister talking about maintenance support. I thought: I think I've heard that minister give that same old speech about maintenance support for over a decade. Remember the minister always saying: "Why, we're going to get after those husbands who leave their wives and children. We're going to make sure they pay, because it isn't fair that the taxpayers should have to pay for these people who have run off." And so on. I can remember her giving those speeches before we were government; that is, before 1972. I didn't have enough time to check in the catalogues back before that, but I think it's worthwhile to look at what success the minister's had in running after spouses and trying to get them to pay up. It's a speech she's given for over a decade. If the minister wanted to use her own standards in terms of success, this is something she has complained about through most of her political career, saying that she wanted to get those payments from those spouses who had left the wife and child, or vice versa, in terms of women, which is rare.

Well, you just have to check back through Hansard. What were the speeches? Back in January 1977, what did the minister say? She said:

Women have been unfairly dealt with — and they have — where husbands have gone scot-free — and they have — where they've left children with responsibilities only on the onus of the mother and the wife — they have — where the whole court system and the whole welfare system has grown in this country to try to provide care for those who will not provide care for the wives and the children they helped to bring into this world.

That's what she said on January 21, 1977. One would think that a capable administrator, a top-flight politician, a scion of the cabinet, would have performed. But the speeches go on and on and on. You'd think there'd be a trifle of embarrassment, a trifle of shame, when the speech is trotted out again. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

What did she say on March 20, 1980?

Mr. Speaker,...it is about time in this province that those who have deserted their wives and children — and sometimes it's the other way around, but that is not the norm — must not just leave the taxpayer to pick up their responsibilities. We must have a different system.

Great speech. But we're talking about ministers with responsibility here. It's not just the opposition grinding away about some problem that they can't deal with directly This is an area that the minister has been interested in throughout most of her political career.

[5:30]

She carried on with her speeches. She said:

In cooperation with the Ministry of the Attorney-General, we are putting together a program which would see that payments that are made to spouses would be paid into a financial entity. That's what she said in August 1980. Then she said: I referred very quickly yesterday to the enforcement of maintenance orders. Because I covered that very specifically yesterday, I will not repeat those words.

Now if that isn't a hollow political promise: "I will not repeat those words." She has repeated those words every year throughout her political career.

But I want this House to know that our ministry is very concerned about the problem.

Well, the hand-wringing ministress of social welfare is handwringing about this problem again.

...as citizens of British Columbia, we cannot leave the enforcement of maintenance orders in the situation it is in now.

[ Page 6001 ]

A year later, on June 1, 1981, what did the minister say?

I would also like to say about the reference to the enforcement of maintenance orders that I told you it was a priority for this ministry, because today, just as in many years past in this province, there are parents with children who have been separated or divorced and who go through the incredible wrangle of having to try and collect for maintenance after a court order has been made. I gave a solution for it a few months ago. It's running into some problems, because we haven't been able to quite figure out how it can be enforced and implemented.

Now that is some solution. She gave a solution to it, but it couldn't be enforced or implemented. Well, okay, try and try again. So what did she say later in June 1981? She said: "In general, the main impetus then of the amendments" — and this is with new legislation — "is to ensure that the provisions for the making of maintenance orders under this act will be uniform," etc., etc.

She carried on valiantly with this main significant project of her political career. What did she say in April 1982?

My colleague the Attorney-General and myself have been very concerned, and we have been working together on a program for the enforcement of maintenance orders. We hope that it won't be too long before a revised program will be put before the people of this province through this legislature and through this government.

That's what she said in April 1982: "We hope it won't be too long before we solve this problem."

AN HON. MEMBER: By closing down accounts.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

It carried on. What did she say about this problem in July 1983? She said:

Now we are embarking on our program...

At long last we are embarking on our program.

...where we are going to be able to do the kinds of skip-tracing...

A great word, skip-tracing.

...to make sure that those husbands who default soon after an enforcement order by the court will be made accountable for at least that which they are supposed to give.

I think it's high time that we in this province give some relief to taxpayers.

Well, I don't know, we could spend $50,000 a rider for ALRT.

... who are having a very difficult time keeping house and home together, without having to take on the additional burden of financing someone else's problems through additional payments....

Well, she carried on and she gave another speech on it in October 1983. She said:

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

Well, well, well! The minister was very proud of the fact that she finally had a program in gear, that she was finally going to be able to collect those maintenance payments and solve this problem. Very proud. And she'd given the same speech for a decade by about that time.

And what did she say in March '84? She said: "The program will make those who have left their families responsible rather than the taxpayer." The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) asked how. Yea, after all these years, how indeed? And the minister said: "If the member had been here on another occasion when I gave this speech...." — all ten years of them, all those same speeches. Who couldn't have been here on a random-sample basis? We've all heard this at least six times — and in my memory I can figure on about a dozen. Well, anyway, she said: "If the member had been here on other occasions, when I suggested that we were going to have a better program of followup, that we were going to have a better program of getting court enforcement orders, then he would know what I'm talking about." Then he would know what I'm talking about! What she is talking about is nonsense, as is so much of what we've heard in the last few days with respect to this minister's programs. It isn't there. She keeps giving these hollow speeches about how she's now got it in place: now we've got the answer; now it's going to happen; we just haven't figured out how to enforce it. Isn't it fair to say that it has a somewhat hollow ring at this stage of the game?

Can the minister now bring us up to date in terms of the effectiveness of these countless new programs, these speeches over a decade, where she was finally going to nail it down and get the spouse to pay and save the taxpayers? If she measures herself against her own criteria — and this is clearly an important matter to the minister — then she has a problem indeed. I think the minister might bring us up to date with speech No. 296 on this subject.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to. Yes, it took a long time, and I'm delighted that you repeated some of the speeches that I have made on the subject. I feel as strongly now as I did in the very first speech that I made on the enforcement of maintenance orders, and I'm glad to tell you that at last the unit is in place in the city of Vancouver. It is there with a staff of people, and it is the unit that I promised. I don't think the members on that side of the House should find it very difficult to realize that in a male-dominated world it was a very difficult program to get off the ground. It's the decision-making in all areas, and it prevails today in judgments and everything else, that the woman who is bereft of funds, paupered by a departing spouse who does not take his responsibilities seriously.... I know there are many who do, but there are so many more who don't. I am very pleased to tell you this at last, and yes, I say at long last. I said that in the press conference which finally announced it, and had the finances to back it through the government.

Let me tell the second member for Vancouver East, who raised the question, that my track record is much better than his — far better. Why, that was the minister who wanted to nationalize the forests in this province. He hasn't accomplished that yet, Mr. Chairman, and he won't. So my track record is a lot better. He's talked a long time about that, and his dedication to that is tremendous.

Mr. Chairman, he also admits that even though I brought this, as I brought other things to the floor of this House over a long period of time.... I asked for a more humane...and a program to assist those children in this province who are battered and sometimes killed. I got my way on that one; I achieved that one. I managed to bring in

[ Page 6002 ]

legislation which made it mandatory to report that sad situation. I could name other things. Some took a little longer. This is one that took a little longer; yes, it did take a little longer. And it was fun.... The member laughs about how long it takes to get some programs off the ground. But I want to tell you that when the NDP was in....

I mentioned this program long before the NDP was in. Interestingly enough, the NDP government did nothing about it. These are the people with the great commitment to women. They're always on the floor of the House saying how much they're dedicated to those people. Isn't it interesting that they didn't manage to do it. That's fascinating. Yes, we had to wait for changes in legislation, changes through the Attorney-General in terms of the changes in the Family Relations Act. We did do that; we did accomplish that.

The member asked the question: what we were doing about it? We have a good unit in the city of Vancouver that takes the cases and acts on behalf of the parent or the wife who comes to us for assistance, which we are now able to do through the changes in the Family Relations Act. We are able to represent her in court. The unit was started at the beginning of the year, and it is receiving many cases. I'm sure, and I hope, that the publicity of this debate will be carried in all areas, because we'd really like to see the people who need the help get the help.

Underlying at all times, as the member did mention, is the financial burden that this puts on the welfare workload, as well as the financial burden to the taxpayer. The whole idea of getting people independent and having the assistance is not just to unburden the financial situation in the province but to give those parents who have been deserted the chance that they need to get back on their feet and to get their families back on their feet. It has less to do with money than it has to do with the moral right of people to be independent, and that independence we'll give back to them.

There is one particular case which in the last two weeks we've been able to get. As opposed to zero, we've been able to get a $400 per month settlement from the spouse by going to court. This is the last one I can tell you about, which I just recently discussed. Now we have assistance and backing for that person to assist her to become fully independent, and to assist her with her two children and herself. That's the kind of thing that unit is doing, and it's doing a very good job. There's not only pre-counselling, but after-counselling as well.

So I'm quite proud of it. Yes, it took a lot longer, but if we hadn't had so many men around, I guess it would have been done a lot quicker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ten years you've had as an administration to solve this problem and the countless other ones in terms of this economy. Don't get up and tell us that because it's a man's world, "I haven't really been able to do it all, folks." Nobody believes that of you, my dear. You'd better try that one on another audience, rather than this one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, I think the member would like to withdraw "my dear." It's a little condescending.

[5:45]

MR. WILLIAMS: It's only in keeping with what we've been receiving in the last couple of days, but I would be glad to withdraw because there are others who might be offended as well.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope I heard incorrectly when the minister said that.... I hope the minister was misquoting herself when she said a settlement of $400 a month for someone and her two children. Even income assistance is more generous than that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the activities of the family support group have achieved $400 a month from her husband, which she didn't get before.

MS. BROWN: I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that as far as the child abuse introduction of the government, the cutbacks have been so serious that even the private sector is now giving benefit dinners to raise money. Fisher Technologies has had to have a benefit dinner in Victoria here at Chauney's to raise money for the child sexual abuse program. So I don't think the minister should brag about it.

Some questions on the infant development program. Can the minister indicate the amount of money spent on the infant development program in 1984 and 1985? Does the minister intend to expand the program to other areas such as Gibsons, the Sechelt area and Dawson Creek, and does the minister intend to build an inflation factor increase into the budget?

As far as residential facilities for mentally disabled children go, is there any allocation anywhere in the budget — I couldn't find any — to develop new residential programs for them? Has there been an increase in the life skills budget for the fiscal year 1985-86? In the Chance worker program, how much money was spent in 1984-85? Those are my questions on the disabled and children.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think I could terminate this discussion without asking if the minister could explain to us why Jo Arland, one of the really superior seniors' counsellors that we have in this province, was terminated. What was the reason for her termination? I want to know if there were any other seniors' counsellors who were terminated, and some reasons behind the minister's decision to terminate them.

I also want to say a word or two about the impact that the restraint program and cutbacks are having on the workers in the system. They are the ones, the workers on the front line, who are really taking the brunt of this — the workers and the recipients, not the minister. What we have is that as the number of people on income assistance increases, the number of people handling the same basic caseload goes down. We have more and more people needing service and fewer and fewer people to administer that service. The end result, if you read the various reports done on this by Perception magazine, the magazine of social workers in this country, and in other areas, is that there is an increase in burnout among social workers. They are overworked. For example, the average financial aid worker is now handling a caseload of 380 income assistance recipients in some areas. There isn't any question that there is a deterioration in the quality of service, and we are seeing that with the mistakes being made. I mean, how can a worker with this caseload know when a child should be apprehended immediately rather than on Thursday of the following week, or whatever? And for the child to die in the interim is something very difficult for the worker to take, especially when that worker is scapegoated in that instance.

[ Page 6003 ]

Also, I want to know what kind of training financial aid workers get. In Kamloops the appeal board brought down a recommendation that family support workers need to be better trained and better informed about the ministry's policies. It seems to me that that was exactly the same finding in the auditor-general's report of 1980. What has happened since that time? Worker overload is having its impact. We're hearing about fragmentation of services, absence of general family counselling and related support services, and the high number of workers who are now taking sick leave because they are overworked and are burning out.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, just to recap on a couple of questions, the infant development program was $1,474,000 in '85 and is $1,574,000 in '86. The Chance program — that's where we put a worker in partnership with a handicapped person in the classroom — was $4.8 million last year. I'll get the figure for this year — '86 over '85.

You mentioned training in the college system. One to two years of training is in the college system, and then they come into our service. We have an in-training service and an on-the-job training service for financial support workers, which you asked about. We have an in-service training that's going on at all times for upgrading and so on. That's constantly on the go because of the very many people that we have.

I just want to make a comment about one of the comments you made in terms of child abuse. It was made earlier in your submission, and it has been made again. I'm going to tell you clearly that there is no delay and there is no slippage in attention when it comes to child abuse cases in our ministry. That has been given top priority in this ministry from practically the day I started, and it has never ceased. That has been given top priority; we continue to give it top priority.

The intimation that there are children who are being abused and left over a weekend in a place where they are in danger is completely untrue. That is not the case in this ministry. If they are left unprotected, it is because they are unreported, not that they are reported and left unattended. So please do not have that comment reinforced on the floor of this House, because it is an absolute falsehood. It is not true. They are given absolutely top priority.

You wanted to know how many social workers we have. There were 840 in 1984.

MS. BROWN: I have those figures.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You have those figures. Okay.

MS. BROWN: You know, I don't mind the minister telling me that my facts are incorrect when she's correct, but the followup time on child abuse complaints is not as swift as it should be, and this is what every single one of us is hearing in our constituency offices. The followup time is not as fast as it used to be, nor as it should be. The phone call is made, the referral is made to the office in the region, and then the social worker in the region follows up on that. But not with the same speed as used to happen before the special child abuse service experts were eliminated.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd like to answer this complaint, because it is an absolute falsehood. The child abuse team to which you refer did no delivery of service whatsoever. They did the training and they did special case counselling after the fact. It was not immediate. There was absolutely no delivery of service in that group. They were something like nine, and something like four or five of them were secretarial staff and not even directly appointed for child abuse work.

Now could I just say, Mr. Chairman, that I tell you today that any complaint on child abuse in this province of British Columbia is dealt with immediately. If the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who has just taken her seat, has any instances that she would like to bring to me where my staff has not acted immediately, I will immediately get a report on it and get back to her. I am assured by my assistant deputy minister that that is the case and it has always been the case, and that there has been absolutely no difference over this past year as opposed to the year before. If anything, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that we have had perhaps a better service than ever, because every day we learn more and we are doing a better job of the delivery of service throughout in cases of child abuse.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think in some respects we've only barely begun to canvass the subject. It's been most revealing to me in the last couple of days as an observer who has not generally.... You know, my interests have been more in economic spheres. but it's been most revealing to me today and in the last few days to actually get the minister's comments. It's pretty clear that we don't have a hands-on operation here in the Ministry of Human Resources, and that there are too many other interests and distractions. The department is not the prime interest of this minister, as it would appear from the responses we've had this last few days. I think that there's much more canvassing to be done, so I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 6004 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

20  Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With reference to the Assessment Appeal Boards for the fiscal years 1980/81, 1981/82, 1982/83, 1983/84 and 1984/85 —

1. How many boards were there in each fiscal year?

2. What were the names of board members, their occupation, and their place of residence?

3. For each fiscal year, what was the per diem remuneration paid to each member?

4. For each fiscal year, what communities were visited by which board?

5. What were the total expenses associated with travel and accommodation for each board for each fiscal year?

6. For each fiscal year, what was the total cost to the Government for the operation of the Assessment Appeal Board?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the Table of the House and thereupon presented such Return.