[ Page 6005 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

School board budgets. Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6005

Mr. Skelly

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

On vote 42: minister's office –– 6006

Ms. Brown

Mr. Davis

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Williams

On vote 43: ministry programs –– 6013

Ms. Brown

On vote 82: transit services –– 6013

Mr. Williams

British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 17). Second reading

Mr. Williams –– 6013

Mr. Davis –– 6014

Mrs. Dailly –– 6015

Mr. Cocke –– 6016

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like to introduce to the House Mr. and Mrs. Tim Gottfried, who work for the local radio station in Powell River. They are with us in the galleries today, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. HANSON: I would like the House to join me in welcoming the people from the Executive Secretarial College, who are in the galleries today. I would like to make them feel welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the following motion: be it resolved that this Assembly commends 71 boards of school trustees in the province of British Columbia for achieving budgetary levels in compliance with the Education (Interim) Finance Act and the School Act of the province of British Columbia, and urges that the Burnaby, Coquitlam and Cowichan boards of school trustees similarly act and similarly comply with the laws of the province of British Columbia.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I said no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And I said no, hon. members. The" no" was heard clearly by the Chair.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I seek the floor to make a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I placed a notice of the motion on the order paper two days ago....

MR. HANSON: For Friday.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Tuesday for Thursday — two days' notice according to the rules. It seems to me that it's a considerable opportunity....

MS. BROWN: Is this a ministerial statement, or what?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment, hon. minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: The minister....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I beg your pardon? I would ask the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) to withdraw that.

Interjections.

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

The Chair had recognized the Minister of Education on a ministerial statement. The second member for Vancouver Centre then rose on a point of order, and I have recognized him. The Chair heard no other remarks....

MR. LAUK: All right, we'll leave it there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. The Minister of Education gained the floor on a ministerial statement. The House has just disposed of leave for that specious resolution and now he's....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: If he has anything to say under a point of order about the procedure of this House or reflecting on whether leave was granted or not, he must do so under some standing order that is permissible by the Chair. If he has a ministerial statement, then let him make it. But he's not entitled to reflect upon the decision of this House not to accept a motion, specious as it is, outside of the normal rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, some of the points raised by the hon. member definitely can apply, and I would ask that the minister proceed with the ministerial statement that he wishes to deliver.

SCHOOL BOARD BUDGETS

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give a report as to what has occurred in the last little while involving the official trusteeship of the school district in the city of Vancouver. I wish to advise the House that there has been excellent cooperation between the officials, superintendent and secretary-treasurer, and the official trustee, and I think that they are making considerable progress. As a matter of fact, I think that all members in the House will be delighted with what they have been able to accomplish.

I am particularly interested in advising the House that there has been communication with the Burnaby School District and the Coquitlam School Board, and I have made it very clear that I am quite prepared to review and listen to any reconsideration of their bylaws and extend the provisions for filing that bylaw under the Education (Interim) Finance Act. Under one particular section, the government can pass a regulation which will allow the board to submit a compliance bylaw and strike the mill rate, provided the appropriate regulation is passed. In the case of Courtenay that is exactly what will occur.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly evident, and the information which is being passed on to me was, that the budget submitted by the city of Vancouver was absolutely nothing short of a political budget. It had absolutely nothing to do with providing educational services to the community of Vancouver. It created unnecessary anxiety among parents and children. When I examine what has occurred with all other school districts in the province of British Columbia, the 71 who have complied.... By the admission of even those trustees or former trustees on the Vancouver School Board, they did not have anywhere near the difficulties in reaching a compliance budget that all of the other school districts in the province had.

[ Page 6006 ]

I made public, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the minister is withdrawing the motion? How is this ministerial statement in order when a motion is on the order paper?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with due respect, a ministerial statement is the responsibility of the minister. You certainly do not expect the Chair to limit or edit the remarks of a minister of the Crown, no more than you would a reply to a statement.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that we as a government must take action with respect to placing an official trustee in the city of Vancouver involves the entire municipal system. It involves the entire system of tax collection. The Municipal Act insists that the mill rates must be provided by a certain date in order that they can prepare their tax notices. I neglected to request leave when I last spoke in the House with respect to a letter which I received from the city of Vancouver. At the concluding of my remarks today I would like to ask leave to table that letter in the House.

I would say again that the rule of law is extraordinarily important. The fundamental basis of democracy is respect for that rule of law. Whether some may not feel as comfortable with that as others.... When we were opposition and the members across the way passed laws many of us did not like, we obeyed those laws. That's all we expect of others. If 71 of 75 districts can comply with the law, there is no reason why the others cannot, and I certainly encourage them to do so.

I find it almost incredible that the president of the BCTF would counsel defiance of the law, and that people in the classroom responsible for children are making those types of statements in their presence. I don't think, as others may do, that requesting compliance with the law is asking a silly question, as others in this House may do.

MR. SKELLY: I'll be brief in response to the minister's statement. We're not surprised to hear that one government appointee is cooperating with another government appointee, but we are surprised to hear the minister's comments with respect to the rule of law. The minister justified his firing of the Vancouver School Board as a means of imposing the law on certain citizens of the province who were in defiance of that law, and yet there are a number of other school boards who are mentioned in the resolution the minister attempted to put on the floor today who are also in defiance of that law, by the minister's definition. What there seems to be here is not a respect for the rule of law in this province, but an uneven application of the rule of law; and an uneven application of the rule of law, Mr. Speaker, isn't the rule of law. It is not the rule of law; it's anarchy.

Now the minister in his statement revealed that there is some political motivation in the way he dealt with the Vancouver School Board. The minister indicated that there was some political motivation in the budget that the Vancouver School Board submitted. The minister had an opportunity to do precisely what he is doing with the Burnaby School Board and the Coquitlam School Board right now. He had the opportunity to discuss the issues with them on the basis of the BRAT report that his employees submitted. He refused to do it; he summarily dismissed them; he used the excuse of obedience to the law. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are trustees in this province today who have been allowed to continue in defiance of that same law that the minister applied so summarily against the Vancouver School Board. That is not respect for the rule of law on the part of this government.

I was in Vancouver the day after the minister made his decision — or I should say implemented the Premier's decision — with respect to the Vancouver School Board. People in Vancouver, regardless of their political persuasion — people throughout the province, regardless of their political persuasion — are embarrassed by this decision. This is the kind of action on the part of this provincial government that makes the national news, that makes national television. When there's confrontation in British Columbia that's been provoked by this particular government, by this particular Premier, that's what makes the national news.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The minister was allowed to proceed with his remarks, and I would ask members to extend the same courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the people in British Columbia are concerned about that kind of embarrassment that's been caused them by this minister's implementation of the Premier's decision. If this minister or this government has any respect whatsoever for the rule of law, we ask that they apply that law equally to all citizens of the province; that they don't negotiate with some and dismiss others; and that they apply that law equally to all citizens of the province, not simply to the citizens with whom they disagree politically.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we ask that the government concern itself with the reputation that this province has in other provinces of Canada and overseas. If we want to attract people to this province, to invest in this province, to become full participants in the provincial economy, what we have to do in British Columbia is lower the level of confrontation in this province.

Interjections.

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

MR. SKELLY: And one of the ways to do that, Mr. Speaker, is by not attempting to provoke the kind of response they have received from school districts in the province.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a couple of specific questions of the minister, and get some specific answers from her, I hope, this morning. If the minister is listening.... Are the GAIN regulations going to be changed to make them conform to the Charter? That is the section which discriminates on age, where people under the

[ Page 6007 ]

age of 25 get a different rate of income assistance than people over the age of 25, Is that going to be amended?

When will the Community Care Facility Act and its regulations — the rewritten one — be ready?

Did you hear the first question about GAIN — the Charter and GAIN; the age discrimination in GAIN? Okay.

My third question is: when will the report on severely disabled children, which was completed in 1981, be released?

Does the minister intend to proclaim section 8 of the GAIN act this year? That's the section which indexes income assistance, or ties it to the GNP or whichever other index so that there's an automatic increase as the cost of living goes up.

How many unemployable recipients were there on the income assistance roll in February of this year? Not employables, but unemployables.

Has Glendale applied for hospital status?

I want to ask again whether the minister intends to increase the income assistance rates this year. I think that the members of the opposition have tried to put forward a very forceful and very reasoned debate on behalf of increasing those income assistance rates. I'm hoping we won't have to go over that again.

In referring to the questions raised earlier, the minister indicated — and I'm quoting from Tuesday: "I think that specifics would have to be put on the order paper, and I would be glad to answer the questions on the order paper." I've had some questions on the order paper for quite a while; so has the member for Vancouver Centre, who was a spokesperson on income assistance and Human Resources before me. They haven't been answered.

There are actually ten questions on the order paper, if the minister will take a quick look at them, dealing with the child abuse line, wanting the figures for 1983-84, asking for some up-to-date figures on income assistance recipients placed in employment. The very same questions were asked by my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). There are day-care questions about how many people are presently receiving the subsidy from the government, and what the average amount of that subsidy is; the question dealing with the live-in shelter for battered women and children, which was transferred to the YMCA effective April 1, the Vancouver alternative school program, which was transferred from the Ministry of Human Resources to the school board on April 1, 1984 — some information about what is going to happen to that program now; the ministry-operated child-care resources in greater Vancouver, which were transferred to societies and private care-givers: we are asking some information on those, specifically Sutherland Group Home, Graveley Street Group Home, Ocean Park Place, Mary Hill Treatment Centre, Alma House, Fifteenth Avenue Group Home, Burrard Group Home, Seventh Avenue Group Home, Chimo House, Eileen Corbett Reception Centre, Park House, Janus Centre, Fremlin House, Cartier House, the PACE program, Avalon School, Project Parent, Eagle High Alternative School.... On and on it goes. There are questions concerning the number of children taken into care, the staff employed by the Ministry of Human Resources, 1982-83, 1983-84 to date.

[10:30]

All of these questions would not have been necessary, incidentally, if we'd had an annual report to the minister between 1982-83 and the present date. But as I pointed out earlier, Mr. Chairman, the last annual report we've had from the ministry is a report dealing with the year 1982-83, which is the reason that there have to be so many questions to the minister during her estimates and on the order paper.

There are also questions about the budget for special services to children and some questions about the interministerial committee, the same report which I just asked for, which apparently was completed in 1981, and on which we are still waiting for an answer.

Some other questions raised during the debate.... I don't know whether the minister would like me to give all these questions at once or if she'd rather interrupt and answer them. I typed them all out, so I can actually send them over.

How many different people since 1976, including children and dependent spouses, have been on income assistance in B.C. and how many heads of family? How many people come off income assistance each day. Pick a day — for example, February 19, 1985. How many individuals went through the IOP program in 1984? How many went off income assistance as a result? How many got a job and how many are still employed or were employed three months, six months or a year?

Of the 237,000 people on income assistance in February of this year, how many have been on for 12 months or longer? Does the Ministry of Human Resources check to see if employers receiving the financial compensation as a result of the IOP are in fact training the recipients? What kind of monitoring is actually done on the employers who use the IOP program? Again, the reason for terminating Jo Arland, the seniors' counsellor, and how many other seniors' counsellors have been terminated? Can the minister come up with a menu which includes a nutritious diet for $3.33 for one day?

There was a report in the April issue of the Kelowna Courier which says that Kelowna lacks sufficient services for about two-thirds of the mentally handicapped children and adults living in the area. The spokesman for the city's largest service-provider to the mentally handicapped says that the shortage of provincial government funding is becoming a growing concern. Would the minister like to respond to that accusation?

My final question has to do with the staff who work for the Ministry of Human Resources. Mr. Chairman, I covered some of this before closing on Tuesday but didn't get an adequate response. Lo and behold, I find in the Province of this morning that the past president of the B.C. Association of Social Workers is raising the same issue — that of workers who are not adequately trained being used either as summer relief or whatever in some pretty serious cases. I'm referring specifically to the coroner's response to the death of the little Jack boy, who died while he was in the care of a foster home — not placed by the ministry, but his.... Apparently his own social worker, with 13 years' experience and who had been following him, was on holidays and was replaced by a temporary worker with no experience. That apparently was the breakdown.

The coroner made 29 recommendations to the ministry, and I'm curious to know what's going to happen to some of those recommendations. The coroner suggested that the ministry set up a committee to monitor day-care centres and require them to submit reports annually; also that the ministry should make every effort to make sure that social workers know MHR child abuse policy; that the ministry should have a pool of trained social workers available for holiday relief; and that the ministry should be more careful how it works

[ Page 6008 ]

with families which have been involved with the ministry over several generations. That's what we used to call, back in the old days when I practised social work, the multi-problem family; but I realize they don't use that term any more.

Mr. Roop Seebaran said:

"'More and more social workers are moving into cases where they haven't received adequate training, they aren't adequately equipped and they're not sure how to act!' He said social workers need guidelines and laws explaining exactly what they should do in child abuse cases. And the government should review its backup and support systems for social workers."

That's what the child abuse team, which was eliminated, was all about. That was your pool of experts to which the social workers could turn for consultation, for advice, for backup, for assistance, and that has disappeared. Apparently the social workers coming into the system find that they really need to have that team reinstated.

I was phoned by the New Westminster community legal assistance office yesterday. They were concerned that, whereas on average they receive about one call a month concerning apprehension of children — and invariably when the child is apprehended the parent or parents will phone and complain about Human Resources apprehending their child, and at that point there is some intervention, either to explain to the parent precisely what's happening or to at least act as a go-between — they say that they have received five such calls since last Friday. They're saying it's not that they believe that children who need immediate protection shouldn't get it, but they are concerned and quite alarmed at the sudden increase.

My final question is: where children are taken into custody and an investigation reveals that there has been no abuse, does the ministry provide any counselling or support services to the child and the family to deal with the trauma which they have just gone through? This came out of a story which I know the minister must have read in the Province — I think it was on Wednesday or Tuesday — about this family talking about the trauma of this experience. Is there any kind of support or counselling service for a family like that which has gone through that kind of experience?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, could I just say on that last case that it was two or three days ago in the media, and that case is now in the hands of the court. I'd prefer not to discuss that.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, there are always two sides to every question: the side printed and the side that finally comes out and usually isn't given as wide a distribution in the press. But I think the member well knows that to be true.

Could I just say, however, that generally speaking counselling is given to the families. That is established within the policies of the ministry.

I would really like, though, to remark on the one case that is printed in the paper this morning, the Michael Jack case. Now that case was not a foster home case. You're confusing that with yet another case. In that case the father is serving 12 years in prison for the death of that child. It was in his own home — the father's home and the child's home. I can tell you that two members of staff were fired over that particular case, which shows that our ministry acted very quickly on the knowledge that all of the procedures of the ministry were not followed through, and therefore it shows that we will not tolerate staff members who do not follow through with the procedures that are laid down.

However, in responding to the allegations in the paper regarding insufficient training, etc., those remarks were attributable to the immediate past-president of the Association of Social Workers, and it's the school of social work and the social workers' association from which most of our staff comes. So I guess that was probably a criticism of their own association and of their own training in their own school of social work, rather than a condemnation of our staff in our ministry.

I also want to say that this ministry, as compared with the delivery of social services, regarding the fight against child abuse, is and has been the most aggressive, has the most programs in place, and has the most aggressive attitude against child abuse, child rape, child murder and child harassment and abuse than any place in this nation, if not the North American continent. We were the first to put a HELP line for children in this province. We have uncovered many sad cases. We have saved many lives because of the HELP line. It was copied by Alberta and Ontario, and they too have found the same thing. There's more reporting.

There is also a suggestion in the coroner's report that there should be a greater knowledge within day care and child care centres regarding the need to report. It's interesting that this very House.... I was with the former Social Credit administration when we brought in that law. The mandatory reporting of child abuse was brought in in this House in 1969, and it's interesting that in 1985 we should read in the newspaper — a 1985 newspaper — a coroner's report that says that people should know enough to report child abuse. It's a sad commentary, really, that it has taken all this time. Even today — this very morning — people in this province have to be reminded that reporting incidents of child abuse is mandatory. They cannot withhold it. They do not have the protection of a doctor-patient relationship. They do not have the protection of a lawyer-client relationship. They have no protection. They must report child abuse immediately when it is being seen or defined by them — in any way of life, any profession, or any area of responsibility.

But could I say that we have at this present moment — in addition to what was said some five and a half years ago to be the best training program for our staff for the incidence of child abuse, and how to detect it and what to do when it is seen — a training program that has just been newly updated. It's now initiated within our training program, which is done, as you know, at the local level in every community in the province. This brand-new training manual is even better than the one which was hailed at the time as being the best in North America. It's been copied too. We've shared that with other jurisdictions, because it was lauded as the very best.

[10:45]

You mentioned the child abuse team. The child abuse team was not a deliverer of direct services. It was a team which really did the first job of training throughout the province. It did a good job; we appreciated that. Those same people who did not take retirement because of whatever decision they made at the time when the child abuse team of nine people — five clerical staff — was cut out.... Those same people are working with the ministry. They are directly delivering service now, so that we have them right in the communities delivering the service. We recognized at the

[ Page 6009 ]

time that we no longer needed that team and that we wanted to take that kind of training into each individual community and have each individual community well trained within the community. That was done. They did that job. It is now being done and repeated with this brand new program. It is continuing.

Could I say, regarding the coroner's report, that I and my staff certainly will very carefully analyze the report. Any changes that we can make we'd be very pleased to make. Anything that will make our fight against child abuse better.... And we're learning all the time, even though we think and I can tell you, not only from observation but from reading other jurisdictions' problems and reports from other ministries of social services, that it is the best in the country and the North American continent. We're really proud of what has been accomplished by my staff. I think that we all as members of this House should be proud that we have taken an attitude that we won't tolerate it in this province. We just won't tolerate it. We'll do everything we can. We go up against human nature and human failure; we all know that. Anything that we can do to improve it we shall.

I want to refer to one other case that you mentioned. Our ministry was not directly involved with that particular case where a foster home was provided. That foster home was provided by the Spallumcheen band, not by us directly. The Spallumcheen band have a contract with us, an agreement if you like, and that was one of the very first agreements in the country where a native Indian band took on the responsibilities for the delivery of social services within the band. We, however, retained the right to be called in and to have not only observation and consultation but also direct services vis-à-vis the protection of children. In this case the child was not within our ambit of responsibility but within theirs at the time, and they did not catch it in time; therefore we were not called in in time and unfortunately that was the case. We were not directly involved in that case, although it did seem by the news reports that we were, that's true.

In 1982 we had 8,145 children in care. We now have 7,436 children in care, the last figure of 1984, and I understand from my deputy minister — I think we answered this question earlier on the order paper — it is a little less than this again in 1985. By the way, I don't want to leave any misinformation regarding that Spallumcheen case. We were called into that case prior to the child's death, and we did give consultation and assistance as we always do.

Let me assure you that anything that is said in the coroner's report of today's date will very definitely be well looked into by our ministry, and anything that we can do to improve our service in that regard will be done immediately, if there is anything that needs to be done.

MS. BROWN: I asked a number of other questions about whether Glendale has applied for hospital status. Should I go through those one by one again, or do you have all those responses? The report on the severely disabled, mentally disabled — those are the questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Glendale has a joint responsibility to the Ministry of Human Resources — responsible for services for the mentally handicapped — plus responsibility under the Ministry of Health. They are licensed for extended-care beds; they have a medical component within Glendale which is recognized and administered by the Ministry of Health. So we really have a joint responsibility for Glendale.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, nor will they. I would think they will not. It has a medical component within it; they have professional staff and have capabilities for medical staff there, but they would not be a full hospital in the true sense of the word — an acute-care hospital.

MS. BROWN: The community care facilities act and regulations — the rewritten one — when is it going to be ready? The community care licensing.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Those questions would be referred under the Ministry of Health.

MS. BROWN: I realize that, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was the one who indicated that it was going to be rewritten, but it's used very extensively by the Ministry of Human Resources with day care and stuff, so I thought maybe the minister would have some idea about it. But you don't. Okay.

I asked a question about the seniors' counsellors, and I'm really quite concerned about that. Yesterday I had the privilege of attending a pioneer tea in Burnaby with over-nineties, and a number of people expressed some concern about whether they were going to be losing any more of the seniors' counsellors. I wonder whether the minister would respond to my question about Jo Arland and the other seniors' counsellors.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There is no question that we will not be decreasing our senior citizens' counsellors. They've done a very good job. We also are considering some avenue where we can perhaps enhance that program. We're looking at that one very closely, and we're pleased about it. You mentioned the name of a senior citizens' counsellor from Surrey, and I cannot directly respond except to note that I've had a couple of letters from that senior citizens' counsellor. We have always had the opportunity to have new counsellors come on and others leave. It is not a service which people hold for a length of time. They come in and serve, and then after a year or two there are others who take their place. They are some of them very much burdened with the burden of work. It's quite remarkable how many questions they do answer. We like to keep them changed, and we will continue to do that.

MS. BROWN: The report on the severely handicapped children which was completed in 1981 — is that going to be released?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That final report was released and is available upon request from the Ministry of Health. I believe that was some time ago. It was released.... I'm sorry I can't give you the date, but it's been available for at least a year through the Ministry of Health.

MS. BROWN: I'm wrapping up now. This is my....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Your swan song?

[ Page 6010 ]

MS. BROWN: This is my swan song.

I just want, in wrapping up, to respond to a couple of things the minister said about child abuse. I received a report through the office of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who isn't here, of a person who did report a child abuse. She filed a complaint. Somehow or other — we're not sure how it happened — the parents found out that she was the person who made the complaint. She is living in absolute fear, because the father of these two little girls, who she reported she thought was sexually abusing them, has actually threatened her life. This woman is terrified.

That is just one of the reasons why people are so reluctant to file some of these reports. I don't think that doctors have any excuse when they treat a battered child for not reporting that these injuries obviously didn't come about by the child falling off a chair or something. But I think that individuals, even though they know it's their duty and they know it's mandatory, are reluctant because they feel that they cannot be protected by the ministry or by the law from some act of retribution on the part of irate parents. That's just an example of one of the reasons.

I am the debate leader, Mr. Chairman, on Human Resources, but I am also a social worker, and I'm very interested in what is going on in the field of social work. I am wondering whether the ministry would make available to me, just for my own interest in the changes happening in the field of social work, the updated manual, for example, on the training of child abuse workers.

Also, I'd like to see the manual on the training of financial-aid workers, because I am getting a lot of complaints in my office about conflicting decisions which are being made by the financial-aid workers. Again, as I pointed out, when they are taken to appeal.... I know that in a number of reports in the Kamloops area, the recommendations were that something be done about the training of the financial-aid workers. What I would like to do is to look at it myself, and if I perceive that there is anything that could be done better, I would be very happy to give you my perception based on my experience as a practising social worker, which I do from time to time.

In wrapping up I want to say that the one thing I really wanted to get across this year in these estimates was how inadequate the income rates are, and to really appeal to the ministry that at the first opportunity that it's possible to increase those rates at all, they really should be increased. They really are totally inadequate. Even with the supplementing of the food banks, even with the cutting of comers, the buying of stale food from the supermarkets and that kind of thing, $3.33 is not enough money to provide a nutritious diet. I hope that somehow, before the end of the year when a new budget comes down, you'll find it within your power, either through warrants or whatever, to make some kind of increase in the income assistance rates and also to proclaim section 8 of the GAIN Act, which is the one which indexes it and ties it to the cost of living.

MR. DAVIS: Very briefly, a few comments and questions re group homes. On Tuesday the minister gave an overview of the very successful transfer of a large number of mentally handicapped British Columbians from Tranquille to numerous group homes around the province. I think most people, and certainly the great majority of people who are in the social welfare industry, regard that as a great accomplishment. On the North Shore we now have some 21 group homes for physically and mentally handicapped individuals. The Tranquille transfer involved half a dozen new group homes on the North Shore, most of them in the Lynn Valley area. This was a successful privatization effort, if I can describe it in that fashion. Tranquille had a resident population, at least of mentally handicapped individuals, of the order of 320. Some 50 or so were so severely handicapped that they were transferred to Glendale, and the rest — of the order of 260 — were sent to group homes. We received a number on the North Shore.

[11:00]

The staff support situation interests me. I gather that in full-time equivalent terms the support in Tranquille was of the order of 450 for some 320 mentally handicapped residents. On the North Shore the staff support is of the order of three to one, and in Tranquille, one and a half to one. One of the circulars issued very recently by the North Shore Association for the Mentally Handicapped indicated that there would be some nine residents in three homes, and that the full-time support staff was of the order of 26. Many of these people who are performing the support functions are of a different classification, certainly a different wage or income category, from those in Tranquille.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

I wonder if the minister might care to comment on the changing nature of the services provided. Certainly the individuals who are now residents of group homes are dispersed. On the North Shore, at least a third of them are back in their own home area. They have neighbourhood opportunities that they certainly didn't have in Tranquille. There is certainly more staff support, In referring to staff support, I'm not including doctors or psychiatrists, specialists who may or may not visit these homes.

I wonder also what the future holds. I know that the North Shore Association for the Mentally Handicapped was very concerned, initially at least, as to whether it would really be able to look after these residents. It endeavoured to select the people that came to the Lynn Valley area by visiting Tranquille. They did receive several people whom they're having difficulty looking after; that's understandable. It's understandable also that some portion of the people who were in Tranquille would have to go to some more highly specialized place than individual homes in typical neighbourhoods. There are those who tend to be physically violent at times; certainly there was evidence of that in one of the homes I visited in the Lynn Valley area.

But to date the North Shore Association has managed. Over time it may perhaps have to transfer a few of the residents out of homes and take others in. Prior to its Tranquille venture it had already been looking after other residents who were not as severely handicapped, or who could, with the support of their parents or other relatives, be looked after more conveniently on the North Shore. Will the numbers be expanded? What is the future relative to Woodlands as opposed to Tranquille? Are there others who can be transferred into group homes in the community, others who, in circumstances more akin to those we experience, have opportunities to live a fuller life?

I spoke before about the physical layout, the criteria for group homes which I hope the ministry will draw up. The main reason I'd like to see certain criteria dictated by the

[ Page 6011 ]

ministry is that under the provincial legislation, the municipalities have no power whatsoever over zoning as it applies to group homes — group homes being homes in which six or fewer unrelated adults reside; In the eyes of some neighbours, at least, this is a rather novel home.

I do think also that there are certain requirements which are unique. This is true particularly from the point of view of those who become residents. For the physically handicapped, certainly one-level homes should be mandated. I think there should be a generous lot — yard, lawn, whatever — available around these homes; that they shouldn't be the typical modern, recently built, tending-to-be-expensive home on a small lot. One example of a home in North Vancouver: all of the lot is paved over. It's small and paved over. Because of pressures real or imaginary from the neighbours, the residents for the time being have been virtual prisoners in that particular home. I think we must therefore draw up some guidelines which will require these private organizations to take greater care in selecting the group homes in which these British Columbians take up residence.

Finally, on expenses, costs and so on. I gather that these homes are purchased by the society in question, but the society is funded totally by the province. There is also an operating budget. If the minister could comment on the nature of the operating budget, I'd be interested. I know the societies are complaining that their budgets per resident haven't been increased over the last several years. Because we have a sizeable number of homes on the North Shore, I think the minister's answers to these questions would be interesting.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, in answer to that last question regarding the real estate. The province's interest in that real estate is held safe inasmuch as it cannot be transferred to another party. So any properties that are purchased in the group homes through a society.... However, if the service is not delivered, it reverts to the Crown.

In terms of the staff support, could I tell you that at the time there were in Tranquille 325 clients, there were 584 staff. As opposed to the number that you quoted in these last few minutes, the staff totalled almost 600 in Tranquille. When one deinstitutionalizes the services that would be done jointly in Tranquille — i.e., food services, laundry services — they are done individually in the home, as you know. That is why there is a high ratio of client to staff. Also it's a 24-hour staff, around the clock staff.

You did ask the question regarding the fate of Woodlands. We have a commitment, as a policy of government, to deinstitutionalize the large institutions over the next decade. We have not activated any program for Woodlands at the present time.

Could I just make mention of the North Shore association, which you mentioned. It is probably one of the most active associations in the province. We fund them because they deliver a good service, and they were one of the organizations that did very well at assessing the clients coming from Tranquille. There were some that they refused as being too medically fragile to move into their community. They themselves understood that. They're extremely well qualified to this work and have done a very good job in that regard.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to draw to the attention of the minister the excellent work that our constituency and community office does in handling many problems in our community. Many of them are of a human resources nature, and we work closely with line workers and supervisors at the various offices. But I must say that our office has seen a massive increase in the last while. For some period of time we have been handling about 300 individuals per month, but that has escalated over the last few months to something in the order of 400 cases a month. They are of various natures, but they are predominantly human resources problems.

I want to give one example of the kind of grief that is experienced by individuals when they cannot be dealt with expeditiously by ministry staff. Because they are so shorthanded and because the caseloads are so large, the administrative reviews take so long and this is an added burden to the grief experienced by individuals in the community.

I have one case of an individual who has been unemployed for two years. He's a former serviceman, a resident of Victoria and has been unemployed since November 1984. He's actively looking for work, but there's no work to be found in this region. He's collecting UIC. He changed his address, and while waiting for the change of address to go through.... Sometimes things happen and they compound a person's problem. There was a break-and-enter in his apartment, and he was forced to vacate his premises. He went to the Fernwood office for emergency MHR relief and was refused. He was put up at the Cool Aid hostel for three weeks. He appealed to MHR for a crisis grant and was told by them that the longest he would have to wait for the results of the administrative review would be 10 days; and yet he waited three weeks. Meanwhile, the Cool Aid staff gave him $10 a week and he was put on the street every day at 9:30 in the morning and returned at 4:30 in the afternoon. He had to wait three weeks for the results of the review. In the meantime, out of desperation, he went to the ombudsman, who referred him to the Law Centre, who in turn referred him to our office. Our staff made numerous calls and so on. This time sequence indicates the kind of situation that individuals are confronted with when they come off UIC or, for some reason or another, are denied at a first level of application for benefits. This particular individual has indicated to us that he doesn't care any more about the money that he lost, but he is certainly incensed at the callousness and the total insensitivity that he feels in terms of the overall administrative structure of MHR. That is an individual's perception that I am bringing forward to the minister today. We can multiply that grief and that kind of experience hundreds and thousands of times over in British Columbia every single day — the kind of situation that they're experiencing because of the poorly managed economy that we have under this government.

I also don't want the minister's estimates to go by without making my own comments about the fact that in the last year she disbanded the James Bay health and human resources board. That action wasn't required at all. In fact, it even caught the Ministry of Health officials off guard; they didn't see any real justification for that whatsoever. It was a politically vindictive move, because the James Bay health and human resources board, along with a couple of those little boards that were still situated around British Columbia, sat and existed as a beacon of an alternative way of delivering health and human resources services. They stood as an example of how communities could themselves prudently manage their own affairs, determine their own needs at the community level, and administer those needs in a fiscally responsible way. There was never any question of the way that finances were managed, of the volume of work that was done,

[ Page 6012 ]

of the competence of the staff and the sensitivity of working level people, working in concert with communities and community organizations such as Silver Threads and James Bay New Horizons, and Meals on Wheels, and all of the integrated things that were happening as a result of that excellent program brought forward by the NDP between 1972 and 1975 under the leadership of Norman Levi and his very able staff.

I hope that after the next election one of the first orders of business is to chart that course again and give the people of the province the right to determine their own needs at the local level and to be prudently managing their own affairs.

[11:15]

I want to say that it was a disservice to that community. There are 11,000 people in the neighbourhood. I say "neighbourhood" with a capital "n"; it really is a neighbourhood. It was because of the James Bay health and human resources board that they were able to initiate many important programs on a volunteer basis. They were able to take volunteer coordinators and translate that into thousands and thousands of meaningful and worthwhile services to seniors and children and others in need including single parents.

The meals program that the seniors look after in the James Bay school has been of concern for funding, because they were worried that they would have to let the cook go, that there wouldn't be adequate salary for the cook. As the minister is aware, Mr. Chairman, many of the seniors volunteer in the cooking, washing-up and serving of food. But most importantly, that is a catalyst to bring many hundreds of seniors out of their apartments, out to meet and be active with their peers and others in the community, to assist them in maintaining good health. Everyone knows that proper activity is important for seniors. To keep people active and alert and in good health means that they have to have opportunities to get out of their apartments, to get to places where they can enjoy the company of others and feel that they are functioning citizens in society. When she disbanded the James Bay health and human resources board she made that particular objective quite a bit harder. There was no need for it. It was a politically vindictive thing. Of course, with their resilience the James Bay community was able to react in a flexible and adaptive way. They formed a society, and they're attempting to pursue the same level of service and the kinds of goals that were very much a part of their program. But there was no need to centralize the authority again back in the bureaucracy, because clearly it is at the local level that constituents and community groups function best, and where the level of service can be most cost-effective and sensitive — of the highest level.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate the tremendous work that is done by volunteers and staff in our community constituency office trying to help people in need — and they're coming in ever-greater numbers, The Human Resources ministry is the ministry that clearly reflects the failed economic policies of the government, because the rolls are getting bigger, and the caseloads are getting bigger, more onerous and more stressful on the line workers and the staff of MHR. My hat is off to the employees of MHR. They try to function at the best possible level, given the enormous need that exists in the community because of the failed economic policies of this government.

We had an administrative structure set up with community accountability, fiscal accountability and cost effectiveness. It was a beacon. People from all over the world were coming to visit this administration of social and health services. People were coming from other provinces of Canada. New Brunswick was looking at instituting health and human resource boards on the NDP model in British Columbia. And here we are going backwards, as we are economically, in the delivery of health and social services in an integrated fashion.

I certainly want to register my displeasure at the way this minister has handled the James Bay health and human resources centre approach and is continually building up these enormous rolls, when she should be fighting with her colleagues for proper economic planning and job creation programs that make meaningful jobs and lives for the people of this province. They certainly deserve it, because we have the wealth, we have the resources and we have talented people. We have universities that are ready and willing to help our people; yet at the same time her colleague the Universities minister (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is clobbering the universities and her colleague in Education is clobbering the school system, attempting to condemn a whole generation of British Columbians to sweeping up around McDonald's, picking up scraps from the high-tech industries and sweeping up under the conveyor belts of industry, when our people could be doing meaningful jobs, leading the country in all sorts of highly skilled areas and retooling our industry to meet the challenges of the future. Her government is condemning our kids to a life of welfare and social assistance. We now have whole generations of British Columbians who haven't had the opportunity to have work, and there is no work in the future. I really regret the way this government is pursuing these policies, and we see it most clearly in the administration of a massive and growing social servants' agency under this minister. It really is a disgrace.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, regarding the James Bay closure, James Bay, as the member would know, was, along with two other areas in the province — there were only three in the province — an anomaly in the system. They did not....

MR. HANSON: They were NDP projects.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I didn't realize that.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for the closure was to make services consistent throughout the province. As the member will know, the district office is retained there — the direct community services are still retained. What we really cut out was a duplication of administration costs, and that was the reason for the closure. The delivery of the service is still going on.

Mr. Chairman, could I just respond to the member, because he spent a lot of time on the specifics, and I'd be grateful if he would provide me with the gentleman's name — the ex-serviceman who had difficulties with the system in getting a response on some service. We appreciate that there can be some glitches in the system. You mentioned three services all funded by us that he got service from, so it wasn't that he didn't receive services; he did receive them. As you say, there was a delay in time. I'd be very glad to look at his case if you would provide me with his name. If you have a specific at any time, please let me know. It's very hard to respond in general to the accusation of lack of service. All I can say is that our staff, I think, does a very responsible job of delivering service. Where we find that there are difficulties, we either add support or we fix the system so that it will

[ Page 6013 ]

deliver a better service. If you can give me examples of those, I'd be glad to address them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, and a bright day it is indeed.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, it's Forestry Week. We were considering a whole range of important job-creation projects in the chamber.

I want to apologize to the House this morning, because I misled the House two days ago — not deliberately, but I did mislead the House two days ago, and I am apologizing forthwith. On the question of the matter of chasing after spouses that leave wives and children in the province, I noted that the minister had been tracking this problem since 1976. Well, I have to admit my research was inadequate. I've. now reviewed the files that are available. Indeed, this minister has been assiduously following this problem since — would you believe...? Would anybody try to guess a date?

AN HON. MEMBER: The early 40s.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's unfair.

We have 1967 as a result of our latest research. Since 1967 the Minister without Portfolio in those days indicated that this was a matter of major concern. On June 27, 1967, the Victoria Times reported that the minister had met with a deserted mother, and she said: "I have some far-reaching recommendations to make to the minister who is responsible. I am getting quite a fund of information, but it's surprising how few people know the information."

It's now been 18 years that the minister has been disseminating this information and tracking the problem. I wouldn't want the House to think that she'd only been working on it since 1976, after those terrible three years of the NDP administration; she has been working on this problem assiduously since 1967. On July 13, 1967, in the Vancouver Sun, she said: "It's one of the biggest problems with welfare services, and that is the deserted wife." It's one of the biggest problems, and she's been minister now for some 10 years, since those days of 1975.

She said again in 1970, just to bring the record up again: "It's important to take this to the news media. I also ask you to spread the word that we are going to do something to enforce this issue to make a better life for these people." That's in 1970.

It's one of the major problems that the minister saw in terms of human resources misery in the province, and 18 years later, it still isn't intact. I've tried to just think. I suppose it's been something that the minister has been concerned about and harbouring almost since the age of majority — if it's 18 years, that's what it must be.

So clearly, Mr. Chairman, the jury is still out. You know, the lady that used to be called Amazing Grace has indicated throughout these estimates that she does not have a hands-on operation of her department. She's not able to provide the data; she's not able to deliver. It's pretty clear that she is the recipient of downgrading within the cabinet system. That's been the problem, and that's not surprising — 18 years dealing with that one question, a question that is still not yet resolved, a question on which the jury is indeed still out.

Vote 42 approved.

On vote 43: ministry programs, $1,464,102,542.

MS. BROWN: Just the size of that sum is a clear indictment of the mismanagement of the economy by that government.

Vote 43 approved.

On vote 82: transit services, $74,300,000.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have my estimates with me. Could the minister advise us what this appropriation is for?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Transit services.

Vote 82 approved.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe we could have the advice of the House Leader. I understand Bill 17 is also coming up and is a matter of comparable subject material, to some extent.

[11:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's understood.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 17.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't intend to take a great deal of the time of the House on this matter right now. But I think it is worthwhile reflecting again on what the kind of capital costs are that we're dealing here with this system. What we're talking about in terms of these new extensions that have been proposed is something in the order of $52,000 per rider in terms of extending to Scott Road, or some $48,000 to extend to Brunette. We really should reflect on that: a capital cost per rider around the $50,000 level. That's the kind of system that's being built in Vancouver. It's an incredibly costly system. It's a system that, because of its cost, realistically can't be extended to serve the suburbs on any significant scale.

What is proposed in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is an extension of borrowing from $900 million to $1.5 billion, an extension of $600 million. It's not clear to me how that $600 million is intended to be allocated. Will the $600 million include the extension to north Surrey? Can the minister advise us? Can he nod his head? I know that when he initially spoke he didn't

[ Page 6014 ]

mention that. So it looks to me like these are existing borrowings and existing plant that's being completed to New Westminster. It's the three months' operating costs for the system that are being rolled into capital, and beyond that there are other amounts, I guess, in terms of establishing the system. It looks to me like it doesn't include the new extension that has been announced by government.

What we're talking about is the possibility of a $2 billion system in order to get to Surrey. That's extraordinary. If we're to serve even the beginnings of the Coquitlam area, then we're starting to push beyond the $2 billion level. Mr. Speaker, it's an incredibly costly system that certainly can't be provided, or comparable stuff provided, elsewhere. We've got 1, I00-odd kilometres of existing bus line versus 21 kilometres that we're getting for the same amount of money. That's the kind of system we bought here, and it's extraordinary.

I'd like to note that even the existing system has not yet received approval from the city of Vancouver in terms of the permits and licences department, in terms of safety, in terms of fire hazard and the like. Some 24 matters were put before this administration concerning the safety and the effectiveness of this system. Many of those have been resolved, but there are still ten major matters being dealt with between the city of Vancouver and this administration in terms of how this system will run. Those are concerns of the fire department, the police department, and the department of permits and licences in Vancouver. So we've got a billion-dollar system here that hasn't yet passed the test of the administrators in the city of Vancouver — fire and police people. That's a pretty real concern.

I guess some of this new $600 million will be used to test the system to satisfy the city police, the city fire people, and the department of permits and licences. There are ten major issues still to be looked at with respect to this untried system, a system that's now costing us four times what the earlier minister, Mr. Vander Zalm, said it was going to cost. It's a debt bomb for the province of British Columbia, a debt bomb for the municipalities that are affected, a debt bomb that motorists and property-owners in the lower mainland are going to be saddled with for the rest of their lives, with a 30-year mortgage wherein the interest won't be fully paid until the twelfth or thirteenth year. It won't be until then that we start touching principal. What we're talking about here is the equivalent of a homeowner finding a high-flying banker to give him a second mortgage on his house so he can keep up the payments on the first mortgage. Every homeowner in British Columbia knows that's economic madness. No credit union lender, even with a $5,000 lending limit, would engage in that kind of crazy loan. They'd be in receivership in no time. Nobody would do it. Only this so-called businessmen's government of British Columbia would load this kind of crazy debt onto its population for some 30 years. It's a debt bomb that will be ticking away for 30 years, a debt bomb that most of the transit experts of the world blew the whistle on years ago; something we're all to be saddled with.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East asks whether the bill covers the system as presently under construction or whether it includes financial provisions for future extensions. I think it's obvious to anyone who has followed the press coverage of construction costs and so on of the ALRT project that it's the latter: that it covers future extensions — extensions, crudely put — to the extent of 50 percent of the system currently being completed.

I'm concerned about those additional expenditures. I'd like to be sure that only those sections which genuinely make economic sense are built not in one area particularly to the exclusion of others. I would like to see a stub into Surrey and a stub into Coquitlam: to large park-and-ride areas at Scott Road in Surrey and to a very large park-and-ride area at Brunette in Coquitlam. If that were the plan of B.C. Transit, I believe future expenditures of the order of $250 million would be better spent than if it was put exclusively into an extension to — and well into — Surrey.

I've expressed that concern before. I hope the government is reviewing both the cost estimates of these several extension possibilities and the prospective ridership generated by them. I'm personally convinced that by extending just into Surrey and just into Coquitlam, the additional ridership generated will be larger than by extending exclusively into Surrey. In other words, I think a cost-benefit study would come down very heavily on the side of a Y which includes an extension to Coquitlam as well as into Surrey.

There is concern about the scale of the investment. By the end of this year — by the time commercial operations begin — the investment will be approaching $1 billion. The capital cost of the system as originally envisaged — that is, from waterfront Vancouver to downtown New Westminster — will be of the order of $800 million. Perhaps less; unlikely to be more. There are certain other costs which should be recognized, Mr. Speaker. One is interest during construction, and that isn't included in the figure. What is included in the figure, as if it were provincial funds, is what in current dollar terms is around a $100 million contribution from the federal government. So the net investment that the province has made of its own initiative will have been of the order of $700 million plus interest during construction.

Now that's phase one. There are certain run-in costs — I'll call them operating and maintenance training costs and so on, preliminary to operations next year — which will have to be capitalized, and they will be of the order of $20 million or $30 million. But on balance, the province has had to find or is in the process of finding something less than $900 million to complete phase one.

Phase two, if it were to include a Y both to Surrey and Coquitlam, would add another $200 million to $250 million to that $900 million figure. But clearly those numbers are short of $1.5 billion, the amount requested. It's common practice in this House, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, to ask for more than may be required over the next couple of years to cover all eventualities, and this has certainly been the practice in respect to B.C. Hydro. The amounts requested have exceeded the corporation's immediate or shorter-term projection of capital costs.

So the number $1.5 billion should not be in itself regarded as very significant. It should be seen as providing scope for future expansion over some period of years, and not an immediate charge on the treasury. The hon. member for Vancouver East talks as if this is a unique requirement, a unique request from the Legislature for permission to raise capital and invest in large projects.

Of course B.C. Hydro's endeavours — those of other large Crown corporations, but particularly B.C. Hydro — have proceeded for years on this basis, on a maximum amount for borrowing, an amount up to which the province

[ Page 6015 ]

may or may not guarantee the bonds. So this is not unprecedented; it's by no means new. It's been going on for many years — I'd say decades — and continued, of course, during the years when the NDP were in power and when B.C. Hydro was expanding and considering large projects, several of which were larger, as it turned out, in capital cost terms than the ALRT project. It's not all that unique. But still, I think we owe it, certainly to the people of the province, to make sure that we make the best long-term investment, having regard to all the other possibilities to which the money could be put.

[11:45]

I've said previously that this is really a long-term investment. It doesn't make sense if we're only looking ahead a decade. It makes an awful lot of sense if we're looking ahead 20 or 30 years. It makes a great deal of sense if we're at all concerned with the nature of overall development of the lower mainland and of the transportation arteries serving the lower mainland.

The ALRT rail line, with its twin tracks, can ultimately carry as many people as a dozen to 14 lanes of any combination of super-highways. Were they to be built, even scheduling over time, as opposed to building ALRT, their capital cost — and it would be largely a cost to the province — would be several times that of light-rail rapid transit.

I think that in capital terms it's a wise investment. In terms of utilization of space, regional planning, city planning and neighbourhood planning, it makes even more sense, because it conserves space, it certainly conserves energy and it's much less vulnerable to inflation because the operating costs are so low. Because it's automated, because of its high degree of energy efficiency, it will save on energy; it will save on manpower; it's less inflation prone; and time, in effect, will float it off, as it has floated off many home mortgages over the years. By the mid-1990s it will have proven itself to be as cheap as buses per ride, and thereafter we're laughing. It will have been seen to have been a very wise investment.

The hon. second member for Vancouver East talks about other systems that vary all the way from an equivalent to our old interurban system right up to the heavyweight systems which are being installed in the largest cities in the world. He chooses the cheapest: those that carry few people, can carry a small total number of riders in a given day, peak hour or year. He chose for comparison, for instance, the so-called Tijuana Trolley — the rail line operating from San Diego south to Tijuana. That system uses a conventional railway line. The odd train which runs on it has to squeeze itself in between freight trains. When it meets a train coming the other way, it has to wait in a bay. The line required very little upgrading. The cars come from West Germany. It is inconvenient except for those who want a low fare from south of San Diego into San Diego and who have no particular time schedule to meet. Very few cars run in each train. The trains run every couple of hours. It's obviously not a commuter train at all. It's a little bit like a glorified Budd car system on the B.C. Rail. To compare it with light rail rapid transit requirements, particularly in a city like Vancouver with limited space downtown and the prospect of a large increase in- population over the years, is ludicrous.

He talks about the city of Vancouver having to have a veto over fire requirements. This is a unique system. It has brought about the need for a set of national standards to govern fire and safety. Those standards are in the process of being developed. They're being developed on the back of the system. They'll be in place and then be legislated nationally by the time the system operates. The system will in fact meet those stipulations. There's really no great concern on that score except that the city fire people, who have had little or no experience with this kind of thing and have no concern about costs, because they bear none of the costs, are naturally asking for the moon, and there have been differences of opinion and may continue to be for some time,

Finally, the hon. member for Vancouver East says the former minister, Bill Vander Zalm, said that the first figure on ALRT was a quarter of the projected figure. That's nonsense. If Bill Vander Zalm said it he certainly would recant now if he were asked whether he meant it. The first figures I ever heard the minister quote were of the order of $300 million. Now $300 million, for a system that's now turning out to cost around S800 million, didn't include many things. It was a figure developed by the GVRD in 1978, and it was 1978 dollars; it didn't allow for inflation. It didn't include any land costs, provisions for handicapped, or any provision for the payment of federal and provincial taxes, which now are of the order of $75 million on that project. It didn't allow for the fact that when built the system could carry some 30,000 people each way per day, instead of some 10,000. It didn't allow for the fact that cars could be introduced in the future that may weigh up to 25 percent more than the present cars.

In other words, we've got a very different system, a much more capacious or capable system. We've paid taxes all the way. Incidentally, we've bought land for which there were no estimates — land which ultimately will be sold at a profit. They certainly didn't allow for taxes. So what was $300 million has become $800 million for very good reasons, and I therefore quarrel as emphatically as I can with the member when he says that someone who really considered the matter said it has cost four times as much. It hasn't. They are different dollars, a great deal more has been delivered and it's a far better system than was originally envisaged.

What the NDP would have built, I assume.... I assume they wouldn't have stopped at Broadway, but merely gone from downtown Vancouver to Broadway as they said they would during the last election. They would have built a system, I assume, using German cars — rather like the Calgary and Edmonton systems — running on B.C. Hydro's single-rail line track, and they would have had to install a fair amount of that at grade level throughout. They wouldn 't have used the downtown tunnel. They'd probably have stopped short somewhere around the end of False Creek. That system would not have done anything for anybody. It wouldn't have attracted increased ridership, and it would have cost at least two-thirds of the present system.

So what they were offering, what they say now they would have done, doesn't make sense. It didn't make sense then; it certainly doesn't make sense now. They would have invested a large sum of money, certainly in excess of $500 million, for little or no result whatsoever. So I take issue with the hon. member for Vancouver East. I think he's trying to make something out of situations which never existed, or he's trying to make something out of a system which he will have to admit in a few year's time is a great success.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm going to borrow a phrase from my colleague to my left, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is known for saying in this House: "I can't believe it." I'm going to say to the member who just took his seat: I can't believe your comments.

[ Page 6016 ]

If I remember correctly, he actually said we were all going to be laughing after this is all over. I want to tell him that the people who have to pay the bill — here's another $600 million for an untried system — are not going to be laughing. The people who I represent in Burnaby are certainly not going to be laughing, because we're all going to be saddled with paying for this — not only us but our children and our grandchildren — all because this government insisted on pushing down the throats of the regional districts a plan which happened to be the baby of one minister who isn't even here anymore. It was something that looked good, that was flashy, but there was no concern at all about whether it was a tried system nor about the ultimate costs. And here we are faced with another $600 million that we have to approve because of something that's sitting out there now. You can't just leave it, yet we don't know how it's going to be paid for.

The people of Burnaby would like to know, as well as others across the province, how all this extra money is going to be raised. More property taxes? Increased fares? How? We're not told anything. We're just told to go ahead and sit here like little ciphers and approve it. I know the Minister of Finance is not the member responsible for transit. It's difficult for him to give detailed answers. So the opposition is caught in a bit of a bind. We did attempt to get some of these answers from the minister in charge. But that minister is in charge of asking us to approve it. I hope he can tell us if he is satisfied, if he's bringing this before us, that it is going to be paid for with the least impact on the local citizen, who is now already crushed by taxes. This is my concern.

The member who just took his seat asked what the NDP would do: "They'd bring in their transit system." I want to tell you what the NDP would do, Mr. Speaker. The NDP would have listened to the regional transit board — whatever it was called at that time — that had worked for years. The mayors and their appointees from the lower mainland had worked for years preparing suggestions for a transit system for the lower mainland. They were completely ignored. The NDP would have listened to those people. It wouldn't have been just our idea; it would have been the idea of experts and elected officials, who were going to have to help raise the money. That's who would have been part of developing a new system. We wouldn't be part of a government that comes in here and rams a system down the throats of people without even asking them if they approve. An untried system, and we're all stuck with it. What concerns me is that it's another $600 million, and we really don't know how it's going to be paid for. Who is going to bear the brunt of this money?

There is another bill coming up, Mr. Speaker, that deals with exemptions from taxes for the ALRT transit system, and at that time I want to deal specifically with the impact of ALRT on the citizens of Burnaby. But I do want to protest that to my mind, this $600 million borrowing is going to be another nightmare imposed on the people by the Socred government.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting. I'm not going to say I can't believe it — my colleague has already said that — but it's interesting to me that we come in to approve an additional $600 million of borrowing for ALRT, and we don't know where the money is going. If the minister had got up and given a speech indicating specifically why he needs this money.... He's even got his colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour confused. He isn't quite sure whether it's for one extension, two extensions, or no extension.

The fact of the matter is, we're being asked to vote here on $600 million of borrowing for a system that is very narrow in its delivery of service; a system that comes down a corridor....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is doing his normal thing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: I'm sure that the member for Boundary Similkameen will give us his reasons for voting for a sum of money whose direction hasn't even been indicated, other than that it's for ALRT. We are stuck with that very expensive proposition. I am not an expert, I am not an engineer, so I'm not going to give a great value judgment about what we should have done as an alternative. I know what other jurisdictions have done as an alternative, and they haven't gone for as expensive a system. Let's hope, Mr. Speaker, that we do come out of this thing with our shirts, because it strikes me, the way the cost is growing for such a narrowly based system, that it had better have an awful lot going for it.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:00 p.m.