[ Page 12985 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 12985

Forest Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 12985

Private Members' Statements

Future of the PNE. Mr. Reid –– 12985

Mr. Clark

International opportunities. Mrs. Boone –– 12987

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Waste in the GVRD. Mr. Reynolds –– 12989

Ms. Cull

Disclosure of campaign donations. Ms. Cull –– 12992

Hon. Mrs. Gran

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No – 2), 1991 (Bill 15). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 12994

Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 14). Hon. S. Hagen

Introduction and first reading –– 12994

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 12994

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Serwa

Mr. G. Jannsen

Mr. Blencoe

FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1991

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. REE: In the gallery today we have two people, Mr. David Opko and Rondi Opko from North Vancouver, which someone mentioned the other day was the best riding in the province. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome to the Legislature and Victoria today.

MR. BARNES: On behalf of the member for Prince Rupert, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming some elementary school students from Agnes L. Mathers School, with their teacher Mrs. Jan Walsh. These students are here courtesy of Fletcher Challenge: Leanne Cilli, Serena Olson, Oceana Leus, Lauren Nielsen, Chris Putterill and Noah Faustman. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of B.C. Transit for the year ending March 31, 1991.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Forest Act to accomplish two separate aims. I'm pleased to note that both of these amendments are a direct response to two recent independent inquiries that involved close consultation with all of the affected parties.

The first purpose of the bill is to remove woodlot licences from the definition of "major licence" in the Forest Act. Woodlot licences are small in area and are owned by individuals, local societies, Indian bands or small corporations. It is therefore inappropriate to classify woodlots as major licences, and it's only sensible that we should recognize the limited scale of these licences in the way that we administer them. This amendment will permit us to streamline and reduce the paperwork for silviculture activities on woodlots, and it will reduce unwarranted costs to both licensees and government.

The second purpose of this bill is to address logging-contractor security in British Columbia. Independent contractors and subcontractors who harvest timber for larger forest companies are extremely important to British Columbia's forest sector. The stability of many families and, indeed, many communities is dependent on contractors maintaining secure and fair contracts with the holders of timber rights in their vicinity. This amendment will enable us to improve the balance in these contractual relationships. It will also provide a quick and inexpensive system for resolving contract disputes, This will ensure security and fairness for all parties involved in timber-harvesting in British Columbia.

Bill 13, Forest Amendment Act, 1991, 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.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

FUTURE OF THE PNE

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to talk about a provincial institution called the Pacific National Exhibition, currently existing after 85 years on the site of the exhibition grounds at Cassiar and Hastings in Vancouver. The interesting thing about its existence is that it is made up now of major components which are far beyond the exhibition fair it intended to be in its initial stages.

My concern today in raising it in the House is that in recent days and months the mayor of Vancouver has taken it upon himself to talk about the future of the PNE in relation to all its components, which is 177 acres of Exhibition Park. There are 365 days of operation of what is called the Pacific National Exhibition. There are 17 days which concern me, and those are the days for the agricultural fair components of the Pacific National Exhibition. It is a provincial fair and a provincial event, and I am totally concerned about it. If it's the intention of the mayor of Vancouver in the near future to tear down and remove existing buildings which have been funded both provincially and municipally and have been constructed over the last 103 years and which are part of the current total component of the Pacific National Exhibition, interfaced with each other, and to provide tents for a 17-day fair for the agricultural community of British Columbia, I am opposed to that.

By standing in my place and being opposed to it, I don't want to appear to have some of the philosophy of the socialist NDP: being against anything; I'm for everything. I'm for making the Pacific National Exhibition — the provincial component, in which I play a bit part.... My community of Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale has a major facility, and after 85 years of class A fairs within that community, it now has the opportunity to host the provincial agricultural component of the PNE. I'm asking the mayor of Vancouver and all members of this House to consider, for the first time, divorcing the 17 days of the Pacific National Exhibition from the site at the exhibition grounds.

As you know, in 1994 the agreement between the province and the city of Vancouver ceases to exist, and a new deal must be written for the Pacific National Exhibition. At the same time, as announced by the Solicitor-General in this House just a few days ago, the racetrack will be relocated from that site to a more appropriate site in the lower mainland, south of the

[ Page 12986 ]

Alex Fraser Bridge in Delta. What a tremendous improvement that's going to be for the horse-racing industry! But when it happens, another component of the PNE will be relocated into a more receptive community.

I'm saying that there's one more I want to deal with. I want all of the people in this House, Mayor Campbell and others in the GVRD to consider relocating the 17-day exhibition portion from the exhibition grounds to downtown Cloverdale. There's a reason why I say that. In downtown Cloverdale over 150 acres are already set aside for fairs and exhibitions. There is already a racetrack. There is already a stadium. There is already an Agriplex. There are already horse barns. There is already a hospitable agricultural community that wants the facility.

I know the member for Vancouver East is going to find it difficult to argue against it, because his constituents have begged to move the Pacific National Exhibition out of their community and turn that into a park. I understand that the mayor of Vancouver also was speaking about turning the exhibition site into a park. I have no argument with that. I think that's what it should be. But my community — the agricultural community of the province of British Columbia — is asking the province and the board of directors of the PNE, which is made up of appointments from both the province and the city of Vancouver, to give serious consideration to locating that facility out where it's welcome, out where it services the community it's made up of — agricultural people, the components of agriculture.

It's the centre, the hub, the heart of the province of British Columbia. It's the heart of the rodeo; the Cloverdale Rodeo is the second-biggest rodeo in Canada. It's also the site of the Cloverdale Fall Fair, the second-largest fair in the province. It's a community of those who know what agriculture is all about, who live on agriculture, and they are the heart of agriculture It's also the heart of the tourism mecca, and the opportunity for the province of British Columbia, because it's the hub of the Pacific Highway, No. 10, the 499, the 401; and all the people who want to come to the famous community of Surrey ultimately will come out to Cloverdale by SkyTrain. All those people who think they've had this adventure of theirs that belongs to the agricultural community....

[10:15]

I want it moved out where it belongs: downtown Cloverdale. Give the people of the agricultural community in Cloverdale a chance, for a change, instead of taking their animals and agricultural products down to that smoky, polluted area downtown around Hastings and Cassiar, where the traffic is threatening to the animals and threatening to the public. Get them out into that fresh, clean air, where there's lots of pride and lots of interest in the whole community called agriculture. If they want to continue to have the ice arena and a miniature racetrack, for whatever reason; if they want to continue to have all that blacktop, for whatever reason, so they charge you $15 an hour to park, and all those horrendous things that happen in the big city.... I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in the little city of Cloverdale, have we ever got a hosting community that wants the agricultural component of that thing called the Pacific National Exhibition, which is a provincial exhibition.

I know the member for Vancouver East is going to make an appeal, because they need the economy down there; it's disintegrating. The city of Vancouver has got all its garbage going out to Surrey and Delta now; it's got everything going out to Delta that we don't want. I'm pleading with the mayor of Vancouver: send us what we do want. We want the agricultural component of the Pacific National Exhibition. It belongs to the farm community, and we beg for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time's up, hon. member.

MR. CLARK: I can't resist responding to that outrageous attack on my community, Mr. Speaker. I might note that I think his notes are dated a year ago, because I'm sure we heard this exact speech a year ago. But it was a good speech a year ago, so we don't mind responding again.

I think we can be very optimistic about the future of the PNE and the future of the exhibition site. I disagree profoundly and completely with the member's comments about moving the agricultural component out and moving the entire fair out of the city of Vancouver. We have an absurd situation now, where a 17-day fair essentially monopolizes 177 acres of prime Vancouver land for 365 days a year. It's absurd. We have a barbed-wire fence all around it so the people in my community in east Vancouver can't get in. It's used for only 17 days a year. It's ridiculous.

What we could have — and I agree with the mayor of Vancouver in this regard — is a magnificent park on that site that is used by local residents all year round. It could be spectacular. At the same time the Pacific National Exhibition can be a 17-day tenant on that site. Rather than have the PNE — a provincial institution with many worthwhile objectives — monopolize this site for the entire 365 days, it would simply become a tenant on that site for an exciting fair. I think people in my constituency want that. I think it would provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in my community, where all my friends, all my neighbours and many of the people who grew up in my constituency can work for those 17 days. It's a vital part of our life and culture, and it's jobs for our young people. I support it.

I support it for another reason. As someone who grew up in the city of Vancouver, I like to see animals at the PNE. The members here should know that people in the city, particularly some parts of it, don't get a chance to go out to Cloverdale to look at horses, cattle and the like, and they enjoy going down to the PNE for those 17 days and having a sense of what it's like to live in the rural areas of British Columbia. I talk to farmers and to young people in 4-H Clubs who like to come into Vancouver, the big city. They like to come in and show the best they've got, and they like the fact that city people can see it. I think it's a part of our heritage that we should support, But there's no reason that supporting the fair there and the agricultural component in Vancouver means that we must have it

[ Page 12987 ]

all blacktop with barbed-wire fence around it for 350 days of the year. It's absurd. We can accommodate the goal of both a beautiful new urban park and jobs and have a nice fair for 17 days.

I would like to use the last couple of minutes to talk about the racetrack, because I think it is scandalous what this government is proposing to do. They're proposing — remember this — to build a new racetrack on agricultural reserve land in Delta, and we're going to pay $3 million a year of taxpayers' money for ten years — a $30 million subsidy — to a new track, when we already have a track in east Vancouver that makes money and that people like to go to. Thousands of people go there.

Yes, it's run down. But why is it run down? Because the lease expires, and there is no certainty or security. We should be concentrating our efforts on dramatically upgrading that facility on those grounds and keeping those good jobs and that entertainment in the city of Vancouver. It is not acceptable — and this free enterprise government talks about it all the time — to subsidize to this extent. Thirty percent of the capital costs are going to be paid by the taxpayers for a new facility out in Delta that no one will go to.

The promoter of that site is an individual developer from Ontario. What does he want to do? He wanted to grow houses on that agricultural land, but he wasn't allowed to do that. So now he's got the government to agree to build a racetrack, which will probably fail. Then they will grow houses on it, because it won't be agricultural land after that.

I don't mind standing here any day and supporting the racetrack at the PNE. We don't need a mile track; we need an upgraded facility at the PNE. We need to have a large and beautiful urban park and the jobs associated with the PNE for 17 days. We can do it all in this province without government subsidy and without building these pipe-dreams out in Delta with millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, when we have a facility now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time has expired, hon. member.

MR. REID: Well, Mr. Speaker, that came right from the horse's mouth. I want to tell you that the member hasn't talked to the racing community. He might have talked to some of the people who are benefiting as a result of the gambling. But there are other people who benefit from horse-racing. The people who haven't benefited from horse-racing in previous years are those who raise the horses, race the horses and maintain the horses. Those horses are trying to run around a 5/8-mile track, and they're running on the side all the time. They have to shoot half of them at the end of the year because their legs are shorter on the inside. The fact of the matter is that the industry wants a full-mile track, and they can only build it in a community that is receptive to it.

What a thing that member said: there's nobody in that community out there. We're going to build this racetrack. The largest congestion of southbound traffic today is into the fastest-growing communities of Delta, Richmond, Surrey, White Rock and Langley. That's where the horses are; that's where the people are.

The people want to spend their money in the economy and get away from that barbed-wire area. We don't have to barb-wire anything in Surrey and Delta. You can come in and walk around those places without any barbed wire. Do you know why they've got barbed wire now? Because they don't want those country people coming into their community without permission and without paying their fair share to cross over those lines, park your car for $15 a day and go around that barbed wire. We don't need barbed wire in Surrey. Surrey will take all the fences down if we can get some of those economists in east Vancouver to spend their money and bring their employees out where we can entertain them.

The other problem we have is that the animals.... This member never mentioned the animals. I'm worried about the animals, because the animals are the key thing to an exhibition. An agricultural fair is the animals, and the animals are being abused. The people who come to look after the animals are being abused by that member and those people in Vancouver who force our people to come and stay in those expensive hotels and pay their bills. If it was in Cloverdale they could park in their little campers and look after their animals at home. They could ask these people who rape this government and rape the public and want us to spend all our money around downtown Vancouver where all that pollution, smog and garbage is — and where that garbage should stay....

As a matter of fact, I have a suggestion for the mayor of Vancouver: turn it into a garbage dump. If that member from Delta who presented that petition yesterday.... You're going to need a site very soon, and you've got 177 acres right in the middle of your city.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

The member for Prince George North is going to speak to us about international opportunities.

INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

MRS. BOONE: That's a hard act to follow. My topic is a little more serious.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation, and as such our ability to achieve good terms of trade with other nations is a fundamental element in the health of our economy and the pursuit of our social goals. We want to preserve our communities and keep them healthy and dynamic places for British Columbians to live, work and raise their families in. We want to get the best out of our people and our resources to create a sustainable economy that operates on the leading edge of technological development. We need to maintain both a universal, high-quality health care system and a social safety net that ensures an adequate standard of living for all. These goals and opportunities both come sharply into focus when we start to move our economies closer to those of our neighbours.

We must approach this debate with real concern, because Canada has the most to lose. We have our

[ Page 12988 ]

share of economic problems, and I admit it will take a long time to overcome the legacy of Liberal, Tory and Socred administrations. However, our lifestyle here in Canada is something we are not willing to trade with anyone else. Protection of that lifestyle is going to be tough.

We support closer relations with all countries. Mexico has been a good friend to Canada, but we must question the intention of this deal. Is the goal to lift Mexico from its abject poverty? Will it result in Mexicans being paid the same wages and enjoying the same labour and environmental standards as we do? We don't believe that this is the intention. In fact, this deal is about a corporate agenda not to bring Mexico to where we are, but to bring us closer to the conditions that exist south of the border. That is a threat to the working people of British Columbia.

Some people say that the manufacturing that has already shifted to Mexico at the cost of Canadian and American jobs has been a benefit to that country. But here's what the Wall Street Journal said about the maquiladora, that special trade zone on the Mexico-U.S. border: "This economic experiment is helping turn much of this border region into a sink-hole of abysmal living conditions and environmental degradation."

So it doesn't matter whether it's fish, timber, consumer goods or auto parts. Under the conditions existing now, labour-intensive jobs will go to Mexico There is no doubt about that. They will be done under poor conditions for less than one-tenth of the wage This deal will become a "lose, lose, lose" deal for working people and communities all across this continent.

But that's not the way it has to be. We need a strong voice at the table calling for better trade terms and a development pact. If we must move our economy closer to those of our continental neighbours, then we need a development pact to lay the ground rules. We need to help bring Mexicans up to our level, instead of having ours forced down to theirs.

We have already paid a price for the Social Credit government's uncritical support of the Mulroney trade deal. Communities that rely on the fish-processing and fruit industries have suffered. Brian Mulroney promised us secure new markets for our products. He said that companies and jobs would remain here in Canada because of our secure access to the U.S. market. But that hasn't been the case at all. Our fastest-growing exports have been jobs and corporations.

[10:30]

Cedric Ritchie, the chairman of the Bank of Nova Scotia, summed it up right when he said: "There is no doubt that Canadian firms are adjusting to the free trade agreement. The problem is that they are adjusting by leaving Canada." A case in point is a proponent of the Mulroney trade deal and a great friend of this government: Jimmy Pattison. Mr. Pattison said: "We saw free trade coming and we thought it was good. We began to focus our efforts on the United States, looking for ways to expand our assets there." Mr. Pattison recently transferred several executives from his Toronto office to Atlanta and from his Vancouver office to Seattle and Anchorage. No wonder he said: "I keep telling our people to forget the border. It doesn't exist anymore."

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about the importance of trade to the Canadian way of life and about the opportunities that the international economy can hold for us if it is managed correctly. But what is the reason for our efforts, if not to protect and strengthen our nation? The border is there, and we will fight to keep it. That job will become even harder in the future. It will require a government that is innovative and much tougher and more shrewd than this government.

Do we really want to be represented by the so-called negotiators of the Socred government, who sold out the most valuable piece of property — the Expo lands — and turned it into a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers? Should we feel confident that our financial interests will be protected by the government that lost $25 million on Moli Energy, overspent hundreds of millions on the Coquihalla, and gave doctors a 100-percent-taxpayer-funded pension fund for perpetuity? British Columbians can do without that kind of negotiating, Mr. Speaker. The Socreds sold us out once to Brian Mulroney; the people of B.C. won't be fooled again.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm very pleased to hear in the opening statement of the member opposite that she supports free trade, because British Columbia is most definitely a trading province. One out of three jobs in this province depends on our trade with other countries. Unfortunately, the member opposite — as she's prone to do — mixes a whole lot of things into one little thing and ends up far away from where she sets out to go. She talked about salmon and herring, and she blamed that on free trade and the free trade agreement with the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that a red herring?

HON. MR. DIRKS: It was a red herring, Mr. Member, because basically it was decided under GATT rules, not under free trade.

As far as trade with Mexico is concerned — and, indeed, where our free trade agreement is with the United States — she talks as though it is a done deal. Yet if she were to investigate a little closer, if she were to look at it, it is simply an ongoing process. It's not a completed process; a number of chapters still have to be written. Again, she's taking that very simplistic view of the free trade negotiations going on right now between the United States and Mexico, as though it was a done deal and therefore we should be taking a very strong position against it. Again, she's completely wrong.

I guess we could take the attitude of the NDP in Ontario and bury our head in the sand and say: "Well, it won't happen. If I don't see it, it won't happen. Therefore I'll just ignore it, or I'll object to it, because I don't know what it's going to be." Well, we can't do that.

I think our position has been responsible. We have gone out and canvassed our society. We have canvassed our economic people. We have canvassed the

[ Page 12989 ]

labour unions and businesses and services that would be involved. We found out what their concerns are; where free trade with Mexico might have a negative impact; where it will have a positive impact. We're transmitting that information to Michael Wilson by saying: "We want those concerns addressed. We will not say yea or nay to your negotiations or to your agreement until we can find out for sure that those concerns have been addressed in any agreement that you reach." This isn't an ostrich head-in-the-sand type of attitude; it's a positive attitude where we have made the concerns of British Columbia known to Michael Wilson, and we'll make sure that he carries that voice forward.

I don't quite understand how the member opposite can depict traffic south of the border and Canadian companies exploring opportunities in the United States as a negative deal. Would you say that all Canadians can only invest in Canada? You're very ignorant about what Canadians have done in the past. Canadians, even in the U.K., are investing in larger and larger numbers. In the U.K. today, Canada is one of the largest foreign employers, with over 50,000 employees in the manufacturing industry. Should they come back to Canada and not invest in the U.K.? You can't have it both ways.

Trade — and what we're moving to in this world — is a borderless world. Unless we realize that and work to make sure that our interests and concerns are looked after and our standards of living and jobs protected, we're going in the wrong direction.

But certainly there's a lot to be gained. Our trade with Mexico today is very minimal. Less than 1 percent of our exports go to Mexico. They rank twenty-sixth in trade relations, as far as the province is concerned. There are some opportunities. There are some downsides, and there are some opportunities. We want to make sure that the downsides are minimized and that the opportunities are capitalized on. Basically, we will reserve any judgment on the free trade agreement with Mexico until we see what it is. In the meantime, we will press our concerns.

MRS. BOONE: I tend to believe that the member has spent a little bit too much time south of the border. He hasn't even lost his accent yet.

We are very concerned about the jobs that are going south of the border; about the companies that are moving their offices; and companies that are moving their executives south of the border. This government should also be very concerned. We are concerned that this government has failed to take a stand on any issue.

In June 1990, Canada was negotiating a seat at that table. We asked the then-minister — the minister who's sitting right beside the current minister — if he could tell us the official B.C. position on this issue. He couldn't. Surprise! They've never had a stand on anything; not even the constitution today.

In February and January of this year –– 1991 — the government solicited opinion from labour, business and other interest groups. We have asked this member constantly to give us his position on the information he has received. We have asked him over and over again, and he has refused to do so. We've asked for his position, and he tells us: "In the fullness of time."

The Premier says she's scared stiff about this issue, Mr. Speaker. But then when she is questioned, she says: "Oh no, I'm not really scared stiff about the issue. I'm only scared stiff about the people who are negotiating it." Her government was a big cheerleader with the Brian Mulroney deal in 1988. They trusted them with the future of our province, and they have sold us out over and over again on that deal. You just talk to the workers in this province and the rest of Canada who have lost their jobs and have seen their jobs move south of the border, and then tell them if we can trust those guys. She wants us to trust her at the negotiating table, but she can't even tell us her position.

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to tell British Columbians where they stand. They have failed to tell British Columbians what they are telling Brian Mulroney. It is absolutely essential that this minister release to the province and to the public all submissions he has received on any studies or reports that he has commissioned, and all copies of correspondence between this government and the federal government pertaining to this deal, and that an official statement be tabled in this Legislature of the position British Columbia has taken on the negotiation of the three-way trade deal with Mexico. How can you negotiate, how can you express your, opinion, how can you tell the federal government what British Columbians want, when you won't even tell us what you want?

WASTE IN THE GVRD

MR. REYNOLDS: Former ministers are rarely seen and seldom heard, particularly about their former ministerial responsibilities and more particularly about those initiatives they took that failed. While admissions of failure are not my style, I'm speaking out on a program with which I was associated, because I believe the province's voters should be aware of the ability and willingness of municipal leaders to frustrate deliberately — and some with partisan malice — the environmental policies of the province, even when these policies are backed up by provincial funding and support.

I will give you two examples, and more if I have time. Some 18 months ago I announced a commitment by the government to financial support for municipal programs to help reduce the amount of garbage going into landfills. While landfills are cheap and not necessarily environmentally harmful, it is socially irresponsible to simply dispose of something that can be reused or recycled, and it's wasteful to produce and use things that are not really needed. I committed the province to a comprehensive and well-funded program of solid waste management designed to reduce the amount of waste by 50 percent.

The first step was a blue box program, and then programs of education to reduce, reuse and recycle. Many municipalities, to their credit, eagerly adopted blue box programs. It is, however, a reality that the so-called source separation programs can accommodate only about 25 percent of the waste stream, because

[ Page 12990 ]

only about that amount of tin and aluminium cans, glass and plastic containers and papers suitable for processing with current technology are contained in the waste stream. In the greater Vancouver area, for instance, up to 40 percent could be diverted from landfill by composting, and much of the remainder could be diverted through so-called resource recovery — that is, by using low-grade, non-recoverable paper and other burnables as fuel.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need to become embroiled in the issue of the desirability of burning this waste. The fact is that there is no alternative use or technology for disposing of this waste. As a society, we can simply put it in a dump, where it eventually will mostly rot — providing no value to us — or we could burn it to provide heat or electricity or for some other purpose, as an alternative to burning coal, oil or natural gas. With proper environmental controls, there's nothing wrong with burning refuse-derived fuel. This is not burning "garbage"; it's burning unusable materials taken out of the garbage.

This gets me to the problem of waste disposal by the city of Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The GVRD — and Vancouver is part of the GVRD — promised as part of its 1985 waste management plan to build two plants to process waste. The GVRD did build one, although it is a primitive example of resource recovery, but the city of Vancouver has not built the one it was committed to.

The mayor and his bureaucrats will tell you that they chose a possible site in downtown Vancouver for such a plant, and held public hearings to discuss the project. Never mind that the site was too small and too close to neighbourhoods, and that there was no information program developed to explain the process When the hearings dissolved into pandemonium, the mayor and his advisers had the perfect excuse to back away from their commitment. Does Vancouver now look after its own waste within its borders? No, it trucks it to Delta, where it operates a smelly landfill that is an environmental abomination. The GVRD trucks about a third of its waste to Cache Creek, 300 kilometres away.

Why, you might ask, do the mayor of Vancouver and the chairman of the GVRD — a politician who speaks so sanctimoniously about the quality of life, the environment and the sanctity of the Fraser River — champion such a course of action? Why not take up the province's offer of substantial financial help to develop compost plants and facilities for resource recovery, and thereby reduce the waste going into the Burns Bog landfill?

[10:45]

The reason is money — or rather, profits from pollution. The city of Vancouver operates the Burns Bog landfill for about $13 a tonne, yet it charges private businesses and other municipalities $69 a tonne to dump their garbage. Delta doesn't squawk too much because it gets a royalty and free dumping. And who cares if those who live close to it have a little bit of a smell to put up with? Why $69? That's the number settled upon by the GVRD as the common fee to cover its waste management facilities. What it makes on dumping it spends on other things. But what is Vancouver's excuse? It makes about $10 million or more a year on this scheme, protests by the mayor to the contrary — to my colleague from Richmond when he complained about it. That they sit quietly back and ignore the activities of Vancouver is to their shame and dishonour. The province, which can use the carrot to a point, simply cannot make up for the loss of revenue to the city, and the whip is not acceptable; the province is told to mind its own business.

Eighteen months after the province took action with the best of intentions, the GVRD and Vancouver have decided to postpone action once again while they study the situation with yet another review of their waste management plan. A valid excuse, Mr. Speaker? Only to the simple-minded — to excuse the pollution for profit and delaying action for another two or three years.

Lest Vancouver and its mayor think I'm picking on him, let us turn to the good NDP council in Richmond, which this week adopted a bylaw forbidding the establishment of facilities to treat special or biomedical wastes in Richmond. Does Richmond have sick people that create medical waste? Presumably yes. Does Richmond have a hospital, medical clinics and veterinarians that produce waste? Why yes, that too. Does Richmond have industries which produce special waste? Yes, indeed. Does Richmond take any responsibility? No, it does not — not even for its ordinary solid waste, which it too exports across the river to Delta.

My point in all this is that all of British Columbia is governed by municipalities and regional districts. If everyone took the same selfish, self-centred and one-dimensional view of public responsibilities, everyone would ship their waste elsewhere — and where would it go? The logical absurdity of events in Richmond, run by an NDP council, should be the laughing-stock of every editorial cartoonist in the province, but it is ignored and reported in a straight-faced way by Richmond newspapers. Again, where are the environmental lobbyists who always counsel responsible waste management? Where are the commentators who should be pillorying such public irresponsibility?

I don't know, but as a provincial politician and someone who tried to do some right when I had environmental responsibilities, I'm disappointed that the province is so criticized, but that so little responsibility and accountability is expected of local governments. The environmentalists should be yelling and screaming about this atrocity in British Columbia.

MS. CULL: I'm pleased to rise to respond to the former Minister of Environment about the waste problems in this province. When he started off, I thought we were going to hear something rather refreshing in this chamber: the admission that this government has been unable to carry out many of the things it says it's trying to do. It should be no wonder in the area of the environment. After all, we have had six Environment ministers in the past five years. With the government having that kind of political turmoil and lack of leadership at the top level, it's not surprising that the former minister has to point to failures.

[ Page 12991 ]

But I was amazed to hear the former minister go on to start bashing local governments once again. It seems that every time this government fails to achieve something that it's trying to achieve, it turns around and starts pointing the finger elsewhere. They point the finger at local government, as if they were not also duly elected representatives of their population with a job to do. That job is to represent the interest of their constituents and their citizens. Their views have to be respected.

The other thing that amazes me about this approach is that I can't imagine how anyone would think that bashing another level of government — particularly the local governments in this case, whose responsibility is it to deal with garbage — is going to foster cooperation. We need political leadership and some cooperation if we're going to deal with the tremendous waste problems we have in the province. We're certainly not going to do it by standing up in this chamber and badmouthing local politicians. I agree with the member that we definitely have a waste management problem, and that solutions are needed in the very near future. We don't have a lot of time to wait. We know that 60 percent of the landfills in this province are going to be full within the decade, so there is certainly a need to get on with it.

But I would like to suggest that maybe this government needs to think about some principles they would like to put in place, before they start going out there and bashing local government for not doing what they think they should be doing. First of all, instead of using the typical pattern of this government, which is to announce the solution and then move to the consultation or the mop-up after the public outcry over the solution, why don't we try doing things the other way around? The member points to Richmond as an example of local government that doesn't have the correct thinking on this matter. The people in Richmond were told that toxic soils from the Expo land were going to their community. They weren't advised in advance; it was a decision that had been made. They weren't consulted; no one provided them with any information about the nature of these soils or the effect it would have. It was a done deed way before it blew up into a political problem. Half of the difficulty we have right now is this government's approach to dealing with that issue.

I would like to talk about some of the principles I think the government should be addressing, if we're going to look at a sensible waste management policy. First of all, the waste streams in this province aren't all separated into different categories: liquid, solid and hazardous. They're all together; it all goes into garbage or into the sewers in the same fashion. Yet the government persists in a myriad of programs and different waste management plans. No one is actually looking at it as a whole. The other thing that I think the government should do is to start focusing on the first two Rs of the three Rs: reduce and reuse. Instead of focusing on recovery plants or recycling, which should really be the next steps down the line, let's start at the beginning by reducing the amount of garbage right where we can — at source.

What about polluter-pay and policies that require manufacturers to have cradle-to-grave treatment for their products, so that the responsibility to look after garbage is with the manufacturer, and it doesn't get dumped on municipalities and citizens to deal with these products after the fact?

But the principle that I would like to conclude with, and that I think is the most important, is that this government has an obligation and a responsibility to provide some leadership on the issue. The leadership shouldn't be in telling local communities what the solution should be; it should be in providing the framework for managing waste, setting the objectives and giving municipalities the resources to tailor their solutions to their community and their neighbourhoods. Let the people out there on the ground sort out what's going to work, whether it's in downtown Vancouver or Richmond or Smithers or anywhere else in the province. Let the people sort out those problems. Let the province provide the leadership, let it provide some research and development, let it provide information in advance and let it consult before it makes its decisions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it will never cease to amaze me when the New Democrats get up to talk about consultation — members over there who sat on city councils and know that this government presented in this province the best assistance, whether it's garbage recycling, hazardous waste recycling.... I remember that member knocking our hazardous waste pickup days, yet she was there to see the overabundance of cars arriving at the doors, picking up material. The best programs of any province in all of Canada were presented by this government.

She talks about consultation. Let's talk about consultation. Vancouver has had five years on a plan and has built one burner, spitting garbage into the air. Why don't we have waste recovery? Now they want to study it again. The mayor of Vancouver — I don't mind criticizing the mayor of Vancouver — didn't ask us, and didn't ask you either, about putting another 3 cents on gasoline, which, I see in a poll in the Province, 98 percent of the people don't want, and I can't blame them. Why isn't he talking about the things that this government has done: bringing in progress, putting propane and natural gas into the cars? The mayor himself, I know, drives a car that operates on propane, and I congratulate him for that. But why doesn't he talk about doing something in that area, instead of taxing? It's a typical liberal, socialist idea: put more taxes on everything; don't present problems....

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: You never knew Campbell was one of you, did you?

Mr. Speaker, these members talk about the interests of our constituents. This government has brought in programs on the environment, especially on waste, to

[ Page 12992 ]

help clean tip. They are the most forward programs in all of Canada. Yet we've had a problem with municipalities. That member talks about municipalities, living in this municipality that pumps its sewage right into the ocean. Shame on anyone who has been an elected official in the Victoria area for allowing that to happen! This government offered assistance — but they're still studying it. The old socialist trick: let's study it again, until the sewage issue goes away, and there's another election, so we can hammer this provincial government. It's not the provincial government that is putting the sewage into the ocean; it's the citizens of Victoria and their elected municipal officials, and they should be ashamed of it. We should bring in legislation to force them to do it, and they should be doing it quickly.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about consultation. We've consulted this thing to death. All around the province, in most areas — all the members, including members on your side who live in the interior, Mr. Speaker — pay a big dollar for their sewage, to make sure it doesn't pollute streams and rivers and lakes.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: They did not all get 75 percent funding — that is not true. You can stand up.

But they took it. They were forward. The members on this side of the House got their governments to accept the funding from this government and do the program. Your socialists wouldn't take the money.

Mr. Speaker, the socialists never know a good thing. That's why they've got communities that pump sewage in; that's why they've got Burns Bog and other areas like that. It's because of the socialist attitude. They don't look forward....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN DONATIONS

MS. CULL: I want to speak this morning about the need for legislation to require the disclosure of political donations.

One of the fundamental requirements of a democracy is a fair electoral system. That means a system that is open to public scrutiny, one where the public can see for themselves that it's free from partisan bias and the influence of influential groups in our society.

Over the years, enlightened administrations have in fact brought into place a framework of laws to guarantee this kind of electoral fairness. It ranges over things like how electoral boundaries are set, the compiling and maintaining of voter lists and how people get onto the list, the spending limits that may be applied to candidates or political parties, and the disclosure of campaign contributions. While all these things are interrelated in what I would call good government law, I want to focus today on the disclosure of political contributions.

Every state in the United States has laws requiring campaign donations to be disclosed to the public, and almost every province in Canada does. The federal government has had a regulation since 1974. British Columbia is one of the last holdouts to provide what most jurisdictions consider to be fundamental to fair, open government.

In a summary of Canadian finance legislation prepared in 1987 — I don't have anything more current than that — several paragraphs describe what each province's financial legislation is with respect to political donations in campaigns and elections. Every province has several paragraphs in this document except British Columbia, which has five lines. It says: "What exists right? There is no financial legislation other than income tax deduction benefits regarding political contributions. What's proposed for the future? None." That's all that's in this document when it comes to British Columbia.

Why is British Columbia so reluctant to take the steps that other jurisdictions have taken to open up politics to the public so that they can see for themselves whether bias exists? It's certainly not because there's no need for it here in B.C. In the last five years we've witnessed one of the most scandal-ridden governments in Canada: 12 cabinet resignations, seven of them related to conflict of interest. Perhaps if we'd had laws requiring the disclosure of campaign funds and other such good government laws, this government would have had less trouble with real and apparent conflicts of interest and fewer resignations.

Whether or not these laws would have saved this government from itself, it's now abundantly clear that British Columbia needs political disclosure legislation. The track record of this government has greatly increased public distrust of all politicians. Every member of this House would admit, if we were to be honest, that there's been a tremendous increase in distrust of politicians of all stripes in recent years. Increasingly, the public doesn't trust politicians to act in the best interests of everyone. They are expecting politicians to act in the interests of their special friends and insiders, because that's the pattern they've seen, particularly here in this province.

[11:00]

Throughout the world the granting of political favours for cash donations is one of the most common forms of political corruption. That's why the financing of elections ought to be open to public scrutiny. The public is entitled to know who's paying the shot. Governments have tremendous power over our lives: they have the right to tax, determine what laws will govern us, let contracts, spend billions of taxpayers' dollars and appoint people to powerful and influential positions. Surely the voters have a right to know who is paying to help elect the party that governs and the people who form that government. Surely the people have a right to say something and to know who is backing the people who wield this tremendous power.

The Premier has said that she has concerns about disclosing campaign contributions because of their often confidential nature. Why are they confidential? No one is forced to make political donations; they are voluntary. It's also financially beneficial to make a donation, as they are tax deductible, so it reduces your

[ Page 12993 ]

taxable income. There's a cost to the taxpayer: we all pay for political donations. Surely the taxpayers have a right to know who is benefiting from these tax breaks.

In 1988 the first member for Victoria introduced a private member's bill that would bring about fair election practices. It included a requirement for the disclosure of political donations over $100. The federal limit brought in place in 1974 is $100. All jurisdictions require something: some of them have no limits and some have limits ranging from $100 to $500. I don't think the amount is the issue. That's something that we do need to debate, but we need to debate the need for these laws right now. We need to bring in disclosure laws and other laws that will guarantee fair, open government for British Columbians. It's long overdue. We need ground rules to ensure that we have fair election practices. Good intentions are not going to be enough to achieve this on their own. The operation of government and political parties has to be open to public scrutiny

It's time that British Columbia joined the rest of the modern world and brought in laws to make open to the public political donations for election and leadership campaigns. That is the only way the public can judge exactly whose interests are being served.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to respond to the statement of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

To start, I want to say that, from a personal point of view, I agree with the disclosure of campaign donations. I agree with the disclosure of a lot of things, and it always amuses me to listen to the self-righteous, pious stuff that comes across the floor, because I want to tell you that no one is more guilty of what you're suggesting than the NDP.

As an example, I want to use one of the biggest unions in British Columbia — the BCTF. The BCTF has nothing to do with teachers. It has to do with power. It has to do with political power, and let me just demonstrate as an example what I mean. The president of the BCTF is a former NDP candidate — defeated. The past president is an NDP candidate in the upcoming election. Many of the teachers, or families of teachers, are on school boards. Teachers are negotiating their own salaries at every level. They are negotiating their salaries at the provincial government level, the union level, and the local level. It's as wrong as can be. The other aspect is the power that this union holds in a political party that could — God help us! — one day be the government in this province. The power is absolutely incredible, and I speak not just from an article in this morning's paper, but from my own experience as a mother.

Now the article this morning is Jim Hume's. I'm sure you have all read it. It talks about a questionnaire that was given in a school to 11-year-old students. Imagine using 11-year-old kids as political pawns. This article talks about the questions asked on that....

The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley laughs. She is a resident in Surrey, where the mayor is an NDP member — Mr. Bose. He says that he has telephoned Surrey developers and asked for campaign contributions, and he doesn't see anything wrong with it. The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley laughs. This morning's article brought home to me some of the problems that I experienced when I was an alderman in Langley and my children were harassed in some of the classrooms because of their mother's politics.

I would suggest to the NDP members opposite that they clean up their own act before they stand up and suggest that we're doing anything wrong. I can tell you that the example that I cited of the BCTF is one that every taxpayer in this province should be concerned about. Every taxpayer should be concerned about that powerful union — the heads of it, not those people who are forced to belong to it. The taxpayers should be concerned about what will happen if the NDP ever become government in this province. I think Ontario is a good example of how.... The NDP government in Ontario is the same as any NDP government in British Columbia would be. They are paying their debts, and their debts are breaking the back of the taxpayers in Ontario.

The NDP fears crossing those special interest groups; they fear crossing big unions like the BCTF and all of the other special interest groups they've catered to over the years. We've watched what has gone on in the NDP. If you want to talk about openness, you tell us how the taxpayers in British Columbia could feel comfortable about facing a government that would be run by the BCTF.

MS. CULL: Well, it's obvious that I hit a nerve over there. If anybody had been listening carefully to what I was saying.... I wasn't suggesting campaign disclosure for just the Social Credit side of the House; I was suggesting it for all of us. We would all benefit from it.

Madam Member, you are the government. You are the ones that can bring this kind of legislation into being. You are the ones that say that you have nothing to hide. Go ahead — let's have campaign disclosure legislation. Let's have good government in this province.

In yesterday's Times-Colonist an article caught my attention. It was buried at the back of the D section, somewhere at the bottom of the page. As I was thinking about talking on this subject today, the headline caught my eye; that's what drew it to my attention. I just want to let you know the headline and make a comment on it. It says: "Don't Fret About Source, Campaign Cash in Bank...." It's a story about a speech given to a Social Credit constituency meeting by the second member for Kamloops. It starts off this way: "Money shouldn't be a problem for the first Social Credit candidate for Kamloops–North Thompson. Where and who it comes from shouldn't be a problem either." It goes on to name the member and talk about the meeting.

I don't have any problem with what he's trying to say. I suppose what he's trying to tell us is that fund-raising is well in hand. That's not the issue. But I do have problem with the statement that we shouldn't be worrying about where and who it comes from. We should be worrying, because we simply will not know

[ Page 12994 ]

where it comes from; we will not know who is funding any of these campaigns.

I think it's in the interest of the public, the candidate, the people who back the candidate and — if that candidate is wildly fortunate and actually gets elected — the people who will be doing business with that candidate. It's in all of our interest to have financial matters such as this out in the open.

It takes millions of dollars to finance modern elections, and leadership races also cost millions of dollars. One newspaper columnist has estimated that last time around the Social Credit leadership convention cost in the area of $3 million, followed by $4 million spent on the election. I think the public has a right to know who is paying those bills. Perhaps once the financial backers are known, the potential for conflict and the appearance of conflict will be reduced. The new Premier has said repeatedly that she has nothing to hide. If that's the case, I think we should get on with this. If there's nothing to hide, why hide political contributions during either provincial elections or leadership campaigns? It's long overdue in this province. Let's have good, open government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Richmond seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. VANDER ZALM: On behalf of the second member for Richmond and myself, I would like to introduce to this House and welcome to Victoria 70 fine grade 7 students from Grauer Elementary in Richmond and their teachers. I would ask the House to extend them a big welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the hon. second member for Victoria sought to invoke the provisions of standing order 35 and provided the Chair with a written statement of the matter, namely proposals for the provision of a vehicle ferry service between Victoria and Seattle.

I have examined the material submitted by the hon. member and listened carefully to his statement. It is clear that the matter complained of is similar to a number of matters that have been ruled on by previous Speakers of this House, who gave their opinions to the effect that the matter did not qualify under the provisions of standing order 35 in view of the fact that it involved an ongoing matter. In addition, I would note that a parliamentary opportunity for debate is at hand through the vehicle of the estimates.

While the matter raised is undoubtedly one of great interest to the residents of Victoria and lower Vancouver Island, the member seeking to invoke standing order 35 must bring himself within the ambit of the rules relating thereto. Accordingly, I'm not prepared to set aside the ordinary routine of parliamentary business.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1991

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the bill contains amendments to ten statutes: the Assessment Act; the Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1990; the Ferry Corporation Act; the Independent School Act; the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act; the Motor Fuel Tax Act; the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2), 1990; the Private Post-Secondary Education Act; the School Act; and the Workers Compensation Act.

Bill 15 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.

[11:15]

TEACHING PROFESSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Teaching Profession Act to provide the College of Teachers of B.C. with jurisdiction over the certification, conduct and competence of both members and former members of the college.

In addition, this bill will provide for the establishment of a certification review tribunal able to review a discipline decision of the college if the minister considers that the conduct of a teacher that resulted in the decision may render that teacher unsuitable to continue to hold a teaching certificate.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the Teaching Profession Act to require the College of Teachers to make bylaws adopting a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of members of the college.

Bill 14 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.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 52: minister's office, $337,553 (continued).

MS. MARZARI: One of the most interesting, vibrant, dynamic and energetic agencies in my community is the Berwick Preschool located on the University of British Columbia campus. It has grown over the

[ Page 12995 ]

years as a small and active part of the education that goes on on our campus, but it's not the traditional university education that we're thinking of here. It is a school for special-needs children that integrates their learning and growing with a group of typical children. In other words, children with very special needs — physically handicapped and very challenged children — are integrated in a friendly, professional and loving atmosphere with ordinary kids from the community. It's a preschool which has developed a large following among the parents and professionals and is admired and respected by the university itself and by the education faculty. It's a school which provides a real service to real people.

The letters I have before me today number about 30. They're from parents who have or have had their children in the Berwick Preschool. They speak in glowing terms of the way their children grow in the preschool, both the handicapped — the special needs — and the ordinary, typical children, as they call them.

This morning, in a statement around the Pacific National Exhibition, I heard that your government is going to spend $30 million, over ten years, to cover a racetrack at the end of the Alex Fraser Bridge in Delta. I heard that literally $30 million of taxpayers' money was going to go into underwriting and subsidizing a commercial racetrack, which undoubtedly will create some jobs for some of your friends and perhaps expand the interests of race-horse owners and thoroughbred breeders in this province.

It's strange to sit in the House over a period of time, because we've gone through statement period and now we're into welfare estimates, and here I stand. You have announced the $30 million for a race course. It never came to the House. There was no piece of legislation to authorize that expenditure. It was announced on June 1. It got almost no play in the newspapers; it's as if it was a fait accompli before you started on that enterprise. I find myself standing here less than one hour later to tell you, Mr. Minister, that the Berwick Preschool is being slashed this year by $60,000 in an attempt by your government to save money. That $60,000, when applied to the Berwick Preschool, translates into five spaces lost for special needs children and one space lost for a community child.

Those five spaces are integral and important to the school. That school should be growing. It should be providing a model for the treatment and development in education of special-needs children throughout this whole province. There should be a Berwick Preschool on every campus, so that it can be used by educators. There should be a Berwick Preschool in every community with special-needs children — studied, monitored and evaluated, but most importantly, loving the kids And it would be saving the taxpayers down the road far more than the $30 million that you'll be spending on the racetrack.

Prevention, early intervention, assistance to those kids when they're young, and assistance and support for the parents of those kids — what better investment can your ministry make? In terms of the per capita dollars to be spent on a child in a year, $60,000 for five placements plus a typical child placement is virtually nothing in the grander scheme of things, when you think about what could happen to those kids if their parents and they aren't supported. Where would those kids be down the road? In institutions? A hundred years ago they'd quite probably be in an institution by now.

I have to ask the minister how he can think that his government is assisting handicapped, special-needs children by looking at a unit such as the Berwick Preschool — a service that lives on morale, love and compassion for the kids — and slashing it by five students. What kind of message is this sending them? What kind of treatment does this mean for the kids? Is the minister prepared to change his mind on the $60,000 slashback to Berwick Preschool?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to respond to that question, and may I say welcome to the students in the gallery this morning. I think it's very nice to have young people come and watch the proceedings of this House. I hope they will see a demonstration of good parliamentary procedure.

The member opposite asks how I can say that we are really concerned about the need for special day care spaces. The records are quite clear. In '89-90 there were 2,056 spaces available, in '90-91 there were 2,195 spaces available and in '91-92 there are 2,300 spaces available. The budget for this part of our responsibility is $15.24 million, plus there will be additional funds provided. An announcement will be made on that very soon.

I want to agree with the member completely when she talks about the merits of Berwick Preschool. I think the way you described it is exactly the way it is. It's a very good facility. I want to tell you clearly that there will be no cut in spaces at that school this year. We will certainly see that that facility is funded. That is not changing my mind; it was never my intention that a school which provides the quality of service that Berwick does would be cut. There will be no cut there.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister telling me that there was a threat that Berwick would lose six places, hence my letters in my hand here, dated June 3? Have parents been informed that there will not be a cut this coming budget year, that their kids' places are safe and that the school is going to be able to roll along the way it has been? Is the minister assuring me of that right now, and have the parents been notified of that fact?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: What has happened, as should happen with all programs that we have.... There are always reviews taking place as to what is the best way of delivering the services required. Are there places in Vancouver? Should there be adjustments in allocations from one location to another in Vancouver? It's not a question of reducing the number of spaces; the number will in fact increase. But there was consideration of where these spaces were most required. As soon as that process starts, it is quite naturally interpreted by those who are depending upon a facility that

[ Page 12996 ]

that will or may represent a cut for that particular facility.

It's an evaluation process, and it is coming to completion at this point in time. We know enough about the evaluation process for me to stand here today and tell you that Berwick Preschool will not be cut.

MS. MARZARI: I'm sure the parents, the professionals and the university will be very pleased to hear that. As the representative of the riding, I am very pleased to hear that. I'm pleased that we managed to sort this out across the floor of the House and that the answer was clear and well put by the minister. We'll proceed on that basis.

I would like to think, however, that institutions and small schools like the Berwick need not go from year to year worrying about cuts. When you've got a good program going and you believe in it, when you can see that the kids are growing and developing and when you know that you're saving money, you shouldn't put parents, professionals and kids through the horrors of fearing a cut next year. It's not fair, and it's not a productive or efficient way of doing business.

I know that our grants program operates this way. I've been in the business for 25 years, and I know that people live from year to year on grants. There are members on both sides of the House who have spent a good part of their time advocating for or writing grant applications, or trying to lobby and advocate for different groups. But when you've got a good program going, when it's serving the goals and interests and when tampering with it will do more damage than not, I would suggest that you don't threaten it. You get out there to promote and help develop it in other regions, towns and universities. Would you like to respond to that?

[11:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to that, because that is a two-edged sword, I suppose. I can understand and do appreciate the apprehension that the parties involved may feel when there is a review taking place. The other side of that, of course, is that there's a responsibility on the part of the ministry to make sure that it allocates those funds where they are needed, first of all, and that the funds are well handled — that there is good value to the citizens of the province and the people who need servicing for the funds that are spent.

While I appreciate and acknowledge the apprehension that the review process may cause, I think it's necessary, because for those people who provide good quality service, the review only serves to strengthen their position within the system. If there are people someplace in the system who are not providing service tip to the standard it should be and fulfilling the public need, the review process will sort those out too. It's a necessary mechanism in order for us to provide the quality of service that we hope we will always provide to the citizens of the province who require this support.

MS. MARZARI: I love answers like that. I like value for money; I like proper review. I like taking good solid goals and breaking them down and looking at efficient workings of efficient programs. This is one of the reasons I came into politics. This is one of the reasons that we're here: to make things work better for people.

Now I have a trick question for the minister. Given that we're both interested in value for money and providing for the citizens of British Columbia the best that we can give them with the tax dollars that we've got at our disposal, I want to ask the minister why he thinks people go on welfare assistance. What, in his mind, are the reasons that bring people into that welfare office, or make people make that first phone call? Could the minister give me a few of his thoughts on why people gravitate toward the welfare system?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I guess the reality of the situation is that many of the questions are trick questions. Some of them are trickier than others, and I guess this is one of the trickier ones.

I don't know that that's really a legitimate question, because I think the answer is quite obvious. People apply for social assistance because they have a need. I could talk about what causes them to have a need, or what I think may cause some people to have a need, but that's as varied as the population is. There are different circumstances for different people. But they reach a point where they have a need. They are not able, in most cases for a short period of time, to meet the needs for themselves or their families for food and shelter. They come to society and say that under their present circumstances they would like to apply for support, because we have a system in this country where we look after one another. When people experience these difficulties, they have someplace to turn. It's a system that I think we can all be very proud of, and people use it because they have need of help.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Kootenay asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. EDWARDS: On behalf of my colleague the member for New Westminster, I would like to welcome a group of about 30 grade 7 students from Lord Kelvin Elementary School in New Westminster, with their teacher Mr. Wright. Would the members here help me to make them feel welcome in the Legislature.

MS. MARZARI: Then the minister would be prepared to say that people make that phone call and walk into the welfare office because they're between seasonal jobs, because they aren't able to collect unemployment insurance or perhaps because their unemployment insurance cheque has not yet arrived? Perhaps because they're trying to raise young children by themselves because of a breakdown or a family split-up or an unforeseen circumstance which may leave a parent with young children to take care of? Because they're sick? Because they're disabled? Because they're old? Because they're mentally unprepared to face life and

[ Page 12997 ]

may be mentally ill? The minister is prepared to accept all those as potential reasons for why people come onto the welfare system?

The minister did not say in his answer to me: "Because people are malingering; because people are lazy, because people are in a rut and they don't know what to do with themselves, so they come on welfare." The minister did not state those reasons, and as the minister remains sitting, I would suggest that he does not agree that people are lazy, that they are malingering, that they need to be shaken up.

Since we're in agreement that there are some very real and valid reasons why people go onto social assistance, the minister would probably agree that.... The statistics I've got show me that the real reason why welfare statistics increase is the unemployment rate. That seems to be the major driving force behind the number of people that come onto welfare. Unemployment goes up, people are in need. Unemployment goes down, people are not in so much need. Is the minister prepared to suggest that there's a direct relationship between the unemployment rate and the number of people on welfare?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm prepared to acknowledge that the unemployment rate has a significant impact on our caseload. Having said that, the unemployment rate is not the only thing that causes people to come onto the social service system.

The other items that the member opposite mentioned are items that cause some people to come on. There are other items too, I'm sure. The list is fairly lengthy, because society is very complex and people have varying circumstances and many different needs. I don't know what we're trying to demonstrate here, but I think that all of the items that the member mentioned will pertain to some cases, and certainly the unemployment rate has a big bearing on the caseload.

To pick out one, you mentioned the unemployment insurance. The change in the regulations for unemployment insurance cost this province many millions of dollars last year. I think it accounted for about $45 million, because people were not able to get unemployment insurance the way they had before. We will feel the implications of that in the future, because they are allowed less time to be on the system, and people have needs that have to be met.

MS. MARZARI: I'm enjoying listening to the golden tones of the minister — very reasonable and responsible responses.

Yet when I look at the history of workfare programs in this province, I see a deplorable history of ministers one after the other — sequentially — announcing a special program to force people off welfare, to punish the poor, to force them into some kind of work, always with the suggestion — that punitive edge — that they're malingering, that they need to be given shovels, that they're not going to be allowed to collect welfare if they live in the boonies somewhere. There's always that edge. Your government has managed to punish the poor now for as long as your government has been in power.

I look through the list. Marilyn Callahan, in a recent article in the Times-Colonist, outlined these workfare programs. The LIFE program is your most recent program. You have announced it yourself and you have yourself, Mr. Minister, said: "Employable welfare recipients should get jobs and get off welfare."

Mr. Minister, you're a mild man, but these words have been used with much stronger intonations, carrying much more graphic images about the poor being lazy, by many of your colleagues with whom you agree politically and perhaps personally. The shovels have been pulled out in the past by more than one of your colleagues.

Mr. Gaglardi said in 1969: "We need individuals in political leadership today more than ever, men with the guts to get up and say: 'We're going to get the deadbeats off the welfare rolls'." This was '69, and he said he would remove 20,000 to 30,000 people from welfare. There were no results — nothing ever came out. There was no publication of how many people actually left the rolls. This set a tone for your government for the following 20 years. Another program would be announced almost annually by another minister or by the same minister.

In '76, Bill Vander Zalm, the first member for Richmond, announced PREP, and we remember that so well. Shovel, not a handout — that was the message then. Then there was the plan put forward by the member from Little Mountain — her IOP program. That brought together PREP and another welfare-work program. The JobTrac program brought in in 1986 — we all remember it — pieced together some federal money with some provincial dollars and said that it was providing employment — all short-term, no real long-lasting training. In fact JobTrac has disappeared down a flue somewhere. I can't find any statistics on what JobTrac actually accomplished. Then Employment Plus came along.

We've had a number of programs. Each one has taken on its own particular shape, with different ways of using federal dollars to create short-term jobs. But always there's been this punitive edge. Always there's been this assumption by your government that people on welfare were malingering, that they were coming to B.C. just to goof off, that they really shouldn't be on welfare at all, and they should be out working.

I suppose the most punitive of all was the recommendation or the policy two years ago that single mothers on welfare had to be out the door, with their kids in day care, and into a job, because they were going to lose their unemployable status when their child reached the age of six months.

Mr. Minister, I don't know how you can reconcile the attitude of your government and the verbal statements by members of your government — most recently by our Solicitor-General, about the laziness of the poor — with your own statements a few moments ago that people are there because they're in need. We know there is a direct relationship between people on welfare and unemployment. From the little evaluation of these programs that's actually being done, we know that virtually none of them have budged or pushed people off welfare, because people come onto welfare

[ Page 12998 ]

because of need. They leave welfare when they are no longer in need — when they get a job, because people want to work. They get jobs, and they move back into the job market.

I think the minister has to be aware that there is a direct connection between a punitive attitude towards the poor and the lack of real services and effort on the part of government to create real jobs and real communities for real people. Would the minister be prepared to comment, then, on some of the real, visionary programs that Social Services and Housing might be prepared to engage in over the next few years? One of the ways we actually can create jobs, and one of the ways — aside from hitting people over the head with shovels, which doesn't work and only serves to completely create anger, destabilization and confusion....

Perhaps you might want to speak to the real issues affecting us here: the provision of child care, for example. Would the minister be prepared to address the amount of money that is going to go into child care from his ministry this year, what he intends to do with the subsidy rates, and whether he intends to create any new spaces?, This, more than hitting people over the head with punitive language and forcing them off welfare, might go a long way to actually doing something about creating community wealth. Would the minister speak to his child care policies?

[11:45]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I had hoped that my estimates would be a case of questions from the opposition regarding what the ministry does or does not do, and my responses to those specific questions. Obviously the dialogue is not that. Clear political statements are being made, which have little to do with me or with the ministry's budget for this fiscal year.

The member talked about statements made by members of this party in the past. As I said last evening, I cannot be responsible for other people's choice of words. By saying that, I do not in any way accept the words attributed to them as having been said. In fact, I know that in the case of one member of this cabinet who was criticized for having made statements, I have seen the statement that was made and his exact words, and they are far from the nature of the comment that is attributed to him. So I would be cautious about accepting that.

What I can say is that I believe that every person in British Columbia who is employable — a working person — would appreciate the opportunity to work, should be working and should try to meet their own needs as much as they possibly can. I understand, and I understand because I've been in the circumstance. You wouldn't accept that, perhaps, but I have been in the circumstance where I know how people feel when they get to the bottom of the economic scale. It may be temporary, but for a time they're there. It's very difficult to make the transition from that and get into the workforce again. Those people who are fortunate enough not to be there can look at society and see all kinds of opportunities and potentials, but when you're down at the bottom level — for whatever the reason may be — it's hard to see those opportunities, and it's even more difficult to start taking advantage of them. So I recognize that there's a need for government to provide some support mechanism for that, and that's what the LIFE program is all about. It's not to be punitive, but it's to help people to get from the social service dependency to becoming financially independent.

I don't think that's punitive at all. I think that's a support system that the public needs, and I know that many people on social assistance will welcome the opportunity of the help.

I also want to make it clear that those who are able to benefit from that service have a responsibility to cooperate with us and take advantage of it, because whatever people are able to contribute towards their own support, they should contribute. If they don't contribute to it, then we have to contribute to it; and if we contribute to it, it increases the caseload; and when our caseload increases, we get to the situation where we simply are pressed for the funds to do it. Where will we get the money to do it?

There are many people in the province who don't have that luxury of being able to better their own circumstances, for various reasons, and those people are dependent upon us for support. The way we can provide best for their support and guarantee that their cares will be met in the future is to lessen the demand on the system and find ways for the employable to become employed so that they are not depending upon the system, leaving more funds — not to be a saving to government necessarily, but so that there will be funds available for those who do not have that option. That's what the program is all about: to guarantee service for those people — the handicapped, the elderly, the children of the province — who are dependent upon us with few options to do otherwise. Their support will be guaranteed.

I make no apology to anyone for asking every person in British Columbia who is employable to take advantage of the opportunity to cooperate with us and to whatever degree possible become self-supporting.

MR. SERWA: It's a real pleasure for me to rise in the chamber and speak on the minister's estimates.

This particular subject is very important, and I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of the approach of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I have sincere reservations in doubting, however, the approach of the New Democratic Party to the situation with welfare. I often perceive it as their method of buying votes at the expense of a number of the citizens of this great country of Canada and the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, this country was built by people who came to this land....

Interjection.

MR. SERWA: Just listen up, my friend. Expand your horizons and listen for a moment.

This country was built by individuals who came to this country with absolutely no guarantees whatsoever. Immigrants came out of Europe and from lands all

[ Page 12999 ]

over the world to this great country of Canada. They came to remote portions of the country; they came to our northern prairies. They worked hard; they cleared the land and they farmed. They lived underground in harsh, severe winters, with no medical help, no educational opportunities, none of the magnificence that the government here and today.... We take it for granted in this wealthy province of British Columbia.

Canada is still populated by people like that. Why does it work? Why did those people have — although they had no financial resources — the richness in character, in spirit, in willingness and in knowledge and the work ethic to make good things happen so that we all live in this wondrous and remarkable province with good health services, good educational opportunities for our young people and, most important of all, jobs for people in British Columbia?

When we talk about welfare, we have to recognize that individuals have to justify their existence, and that is not simply by money alone. We have to have the feeling of fulfilment, self-esteem and personal pride, which makes this world just a little better for our being here.

No amount of money can compensate for that sense of accomplishment, which we all need. That's the very foundation and essence of our being. What we have in debate in the minister's estimates is the very essence of the difference of perspective between the socialists and the people on our side.

We believe in the individual in society and striving to create an environment where that individual, through their own initiative and the opportunities that society collectively provides, is able to maximize every bit of their ability to develop to the fullest possible extent. That's what the country is built on and where the pride and self-esteem comes from.

The members opposite want to keep people dependent on a system and to give them enough to survive, but not to provide the richness, resources and background to feel that sense of accomplishment. We give them money and nothing else. It's like wealthy parents thinking that love is giving the child all sorts of money, but not of themselves.

We have to work with these people and to help them, because we have parents parenting children who haven't been properly parented themselves. We have to break that and give them opportunities. Yes, we have to help them. In many cases we have to teach them how to garden, how to make clothes — perhaps to mend clothes — and to do all of the things that are very important to be able to survive on the income they are receiving — not to make them dependent on some artificial source of income so that they can survive along with all of their neighbours and friends who are working hard.

Mr. Speaker, the absurdity and the extension of that philosophy which doesn't help people to help themselves....

Interjection.

MR. SERWA: You, Mr. Member, should be well aware that if you really want to help a man, instead of giving him a fish you will teach him how to fish. There is a subtle difference in the philosophies of our two parties. It's really important, because what you're proposing is unfair to those people who are caught in the welfare system, which is a relatively small static percentage of the population. It's grossly unfair to the taxpayers of this province and of the great nation of Canada.

That's the extension of your philosophy. The absurdity is carried on presently in the great province of Ontario. What do we do in the province of Ontario? Well, I will tell you. A married couple with two children and with assets get the equivalent of $45,000 a year before taxes to maintain a standard of living.

How can the economy stand it when we're ensuring that those who have pride and who are willing to take jobs cannot afford to take jobs because of that excessive layer of welfare? That's what those members opposite are driving for; that's what they believe they will get votes for.

Well, there is no magic tap. All the services that government provides are directly dependent on the benefits of a strong economy. They have to understand that. They have to understand what makes an economy happen. And they really don't. I've heard members on the opposite side say: "We've had a meeting with social workers and health care workers and other professionals in those fields, and we've created an image of a perfect society, " But what they've left out are the people who are responsible for making the economy hum, for making things happen and for recognizing that unless we have a strong and healthy economy, we can't do the good things we all want to do — and that's on both sides of the House, Mr. Chairman.

So we need that healthy economy, but we won't have it with the attitude they have in Ontario, where you have to have that equivalent of $45,000 before taxes in order to provide the care for a married couple with two children. We get the basic payments; we get special payments for medical and dental; we get clothing allowances; we get tax accommodations and benefits, plus the principal payments. If the members opposite genuinely want to help people help themselves, they will arm them through educational opportunities, through assistance, through giving of themselves. It is a fallacy. It's a terminal sickness, and it exhibits the finite limitations of their sensitivity for people on welfare, as well as the gross unfairness to the other taxpayers of this province. Working together, we can start to minimize the situation of the poor by creating employment opportunities and a strong economy. That's where you folks haven't got anything together in any way, shape or form. You're professional politicians, you're unionists, and you represent special interest groups.

Mr. Minister, I commend you on the fine-quality work and the compassionate, caring services provided by your ministry for the people of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this opportunity to say this, because the difference is really emphasized here between the New Democrats and the Social Credit side of the House.

[ Page 13000 ]

MR. LONG: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LONG: In the galleries today we have 13 Brownies from the Eighth Powell River pack and one Girl Guide, as well as their leader, Louise Redlon, and three assistants. They are: Nicki Iwasiuk, Sherrie Ashworth, Jolene Pirart. Kerrie Orchiston, Alisha Goes, Diana Burton. Dana Nelson and her sister Jana, Kim and Gail Olver, Jeanne Redlon, Patricia Abbott and Lorraine Nelson. As well, we have three close friends of mine from Powell River: Mrs. Marylyne Hopkins, Cindy Hopkins and Bill Hopkins. I'd like to have this House join me in making them all very welcome.

[12:00]

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Minister, it was a trick question, and I gather the whole process became tricky. You were almost convincing me that you sincerely believed that the welfare rates and welfare statistics were directly correlated with the unemployment statistics, and that we could perhaps move on to discuss the larger issues of child care and community economic development and creating true jobs in communities without punishing the poor. Their own colleague stood up to undo all your convincing arguments, and I feel very sorry for you at this moment because the real Social Credit stood up and spoke.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'm glad he spoke because I was getting a little worried there as he spoke. He was talking about 11 pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and living like your predecessors and getting out there and making a life for yourself and recreating the pioneer imagery of our forefathers." It was when he reached the part about "helping a man" that I realized what the problem was: he was helping men.

I'd like to take both of you, the minister and the member of Okanagan, to meet a few women who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps until there aren't any more bootstraps, who raised their children without partners, who live as working poor earning less than $10,000 a year in our community, who may be on welfare or may not be on welfare but who may fluctuate between the two for their income security, who are completely marginal to the workforce, who have been completely forgotten by this government.

When you think about them, you say, "Get off the welfare rolls the second your child turns six months old and get out there and get a job, " while on the other hand you say: "The sanctity of motherhood and how important it is that the mother remain in the home." Don't talk to them. Don't talk to those women, because they're sitting — they're not sitting; they're working — eight hours a day as waitresses and then they're coming home to their kids. They're trying to find day care, if they're lucky, and then working another eight hours in their home.

Resourcefulness? You couldn't find more resourceful women — bringing home $1,000 a month, if they're lucky, going into debt perhaps $10 a month. Perhaps for that month the fruit isn't fresh on the table every week, perhaps there's no fruit at all in the house. Don't talk to me. Don't talk to those women about resourcefulness and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Don't talk to them about how you have to help them with your $30 million a year for workfare programs..

Just take that $30 million a year and spread it around among them and watch what they do in their communities for themselves and their kids. They're looking for money. They don't want your charity; they don't want your Lady Bountiful; they don't want your workfare programs or your threats once a year in the summertime when the news gets slow; they don't want to be told to pick up shovels. They would like a little money. They'd like to be able to make ends meet so that they can raise their kids. They'd like to be able to make 100-cent dollars instead of 60-cent dollars, and they'd like to be able to think that they'd be able to get into a good job, not just a marginal job and not just training for a marginal job but training for something that is waiting for them in the market.

They're willing to create that as well. They're willing to create those small businesses. In fact, those women are creating those small businesses, and they are succeeding. It's not women in small businesses who fail in our economy; it's men in small business that fail. These women know about resourcefulness, and yet these women number 35,000 on the welfare rolls and probably another 50,000 in working-poor situations.

Here's a backbone for you for this province and for the redevelopment of a strong economy: the resourcefulness of those women, if it was harnessed and turned to good, instead of being constantly punished, would probably pull this province out of its doldrums overnight. But no, we punish.

The minister doesn't want to punish; he's claimed he doesn't want to. But his party and the last speaker definitely show that we're still living in the nineteenth century with notions of the poor: they must be helped and kicked and goaded and insulted with notions that women are marginal and invisible and don't count at all — we must help a man. This is where this government is stuck. We spend billions of dollars, it seems to me, keeping the poor, kicking them when they are down and providing lacklustre six-month training programs that lead them to dead-end jobs.

We haven't made the connections between what we do to them and what we need to do to create a vibrant economy and community. We start with day care and with community economic development. We start with where people are at. We start with small business. We develop those notions and work from there. But we've so successfully chopped and channelled all our problems: the poor are over here to be neglected and punished; the rich are over there to be given $30 million for a racetrack. It's not the way to do public business. If we want to share profits and invest in human capital, we should be starting with those people who are the most vulnerable. They are the ones, very

[ Page 13001 ]

often, who are willing to try the hardest to create wealth — and in fact who do create wealth. Those women with kids, the working poor, do nothing but create wealth. Simply by being with their kids and working in the community, they are factories of wealth creation — and we punish them, rather than encourage them.

Mr. Minister, we are going to come back on another day to the questions of how we actually create the larger vision. The larger vision, in my mind, is a connecting framework, starting with creating jobs in child care, addressing and promoting women's work in the health care industries, in home support and home services — in industries that can actually address the needs in our communities and help generate some wealth, as money circulates and people are rewarded for jobs done. Let's bring a new women's economy into this debate. We've been rehashing the nineteenth century for the last 20 years around here, and that isn't the way it is going to be from now on.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I've heard the member opposite talk about us punishing the poor in this province. If I'm responsible in any way for having punished the poor, let me say that I am deeply apologetic for that, because that would be the last thing that I would ever hope to be involved in. All of us in a civilized society have a responsibility to help the poor and to be concerned with the needs of the poor. Regardless of our financial status or how good our lives may be, we should not ever forget the needs of the poor. We should consider those needs very sincerely. I think that we do that. We have done a very good job of trying to meet the needs of the poor, particularly with the emphasis placed upon single parents. The majority of those, as we all know, are women trying to improve their circumstances. Let me tell you that I recognize that it is not easy. Nevertheless, we are meeting with considerable success.

I read these numbers yesterday, but I want to repeat them. In 1991 the women who are participating in the programs that we offer support to include: individual counselling, 1,800; training and education, 14,000 women who participated; 500 in work experience programs; 3,900 in wage subsidy programs; 3,000 in job search support programs. There are many success stories. I don't want to take the time here to do it, but we could bring in the listing of the success stories. That would take too long, but just let me read one short letter from one person. It was in the press, so it's been out there in the public domain; it's not a private or confidential letter. It comes from my community, and I think it typifies what many have said who have been on the programs. It's headed: "Better Life." It starts off by saying:

"I am fed up with reading about welfare system abusers. How about saying something about those who really do put an effort into making a better life for themselves and their families?

"I was on social assistance for a few years and, trust me, it was not easy Upon the realization that I was a single mother of two, I proceeded to dive into bettering myself through education. I spent two and a half years in college with social assistance at my side. I obtained my grade 12 certificate, my office assistant certificate and my legal secretary's certificate. I am still making payments on my student loan.

"After a long period of job-hunting, I am now employed as a secretary for a notary. I am very happy with my job and grateful that welfare was there for myself and my children.

"There are those of us who really do want better, and if given the opportunity can be as successful as anyone else. I would like to thank the taxpayers. It was their dollars that helped me get where I am today."

That was from a lady in Mission. That typifies the experience of many women in this province, I'm happy to say. With that kind of evidence, I don't think we can stand here and fairly say that we are not helping but are in fact punishing the poor. I don't think it's consistent with the evidence.

MR. G. JANSSEN: One success story, and perhaps ten or 15 success stories, but I think we're talking about thousands of stories of non-success. The minister should be putting the letter he just read into perspective — into a percentage — so that we know how many people enter the programs. He talks about 18,000, 14,000 or 500 people entering programs. Yet we see thousands of people stuck continually in welfare or low-paying jobs without any opportunity to get out.

Yes, there are programs — the LIFE program, the JobTrac program, whatever they may be called on the particular day when the new minister thinks up a new idea or rehashes an old program. However, when those programs put people into low-paying jobs where they don't make enough money to properly feed and clothe their families, they end up going down to the food bank, which has ever-increasing lineups, so they can pick up their food. Perhaps they even take part of a day off from that menial job they have been able to retain, to go down and stand in the food line-up so their children can have some fresh fruit on the table, some good food, other than macaroni-and-cheese or lasagne night after night. At the end of the week, when a teenage daughter would perhaps like to go the school dance, she doesn't want to because she doesn't have the clothes like the other children have and can't partake in an active social life.

People carry that kind of feeling forward into their adult lives. To stick people in that kind of atmosphere year after year, to have them grow up.... The member from Kelowna stood there and said: "People came here, started this country, worked hard and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. My parents came here, but they just didn't bring that philosophy with them; they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps." We came here in 1952 with $35 in our pockets, and my father started over again in this country. My family started over: they built a business, they hired people, and they made it a success.

They also brought with them another very important aspect of European social democracy: the sharing aspect, where people are properly looked after — not on minimum wage, not on debilitating welfare payments, but actually with enough money so that they can live a decent life, raise their children and put them into programs. We're talking 65 to 75 percent of the

[ Page 13002 ]

average annual wage in Europe. When Europe comes together in 1992, it will not be like the free trade agreement we signed with the United States and are going to sign with Mexico; a social package will go with that. Every country will treat its workers, its people and its women fairly, with equal wages for men and women, not 60-cent dollars. That's the kind of program we're looking for.

Why should people go on your LIFE program or your JobTrac program if in fact they're stuck in $7-an-hour jobs and $6-an-hour jobs that they know they're never going to get out of? When housing in Vancouver and the lower mainland is an average of $212,000, why would people take you up on their programs?

The question to the minister is: what is the cost of putting the minimum wage up? We've always heard that if you put the minimum wage up, business will leave the province. Let's take the example of McDonald's: that's in the minimum-wage area. The minimum wage went up 50 cents; the price of hamburgers went down. Has the ministry looked at the cost of bringing the minimum wage up so that it at least matches the poverty line; so that there's encouragement for people to take part in the programs your ministry offers; so that there is incentive to go to work — and not so that they can be worse off than they were on social assistance? Has the ministry looked at what the cost of the minimum wage would be and what the savings on the other end would be from encouraging people to get off social assistance?

[12:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might comment that it understands that the purview of the minimum wage is the Ministry of Labour's.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make the comment that the minimum wage is not within my mandate as Minister of Social Services and Housing. I suppose we could all have opinions on it. I've heard arguments both ways, and I listen with interest. I understand that the member who was asking the question or making comments — making a statement, I should say — is in the retail business. He projected, I guess, a new kind of economics that I haven't heard of: the costs would go up and the product would come down. I don't know if that applies in his business. If his costs go up, I don't know that he will sell his product cheaper, but perhaps. Perhaps he has a different system than anyone I'm familiar with. But generally speaking, when costs go up, the cost of the product goes up accordingly. That's been happening for some time.

I know that it is very difficult for people at the lower end of the income scale to make things work financially. I have a lot of concern, for instance, about the problems that low-wage-earners face with accommodation, because rental accommodations are high. I've been addressing that particular problem. I'm very concerned about those people who struggle very hard to be independent. It's not easy for them to do that, given some of the costs that are inherent in providing accommodations, particularly for families. So we have concerns about that too.

The alternative that member speaks about I guess must be for us to offer everyone high-paying government-financed jobs. I don't know where else they're going to come from. If the jobs that are in society today are not adequate, I don't know who will provide them. But if we should replace those with a government program that would provide government jobs in society, the result will be that the people who are poor today will in a very short time be poor again. They will be joined by the rest of society, because we will all be in the same position. That being the case, there will be no programs to help anyone. Far better that we are here trying to maintain a healthy economy so that we can help those people who are in need, and that is precisely what you're doing.

I'm quite familiar with the good will and the caring environment that exists in the European countries that you're talking about. My ancestral background is Norwegian, and I think the Norwegians have one of the most caring societies in the world. But I recognize there are limitations on it, and so do many people who live there. We try to be caring and provide support and help to those who really need it.

The option of getting a way to develop government sponsored employment that will in fact bring everybody out of poverty is a dream, and will — lead to everyone being reduced to poverty and no help being available for anyone.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister has a 1930s, if not a 1900, approach to economics. If, in fact, he is Norwegian as he says he is and understands the system over there, perhaps he should go over to take a closer look at the economics of the European system.

I do pay my employees far above the minimum wage in my business, and there is a benefit package that goes with that. When I was president of the chamber of commerce in Port Alberni, I initiated a collective agreement — the first one in British Columbia among chamber members — that nearly doubled the wages of the employees, and they stayed there. There had been tremendous turnover because of the low wages we were paying. A benefit package went with that, and do you know what happened, Mr. Minister? One of those employees actually bought a car, and that money rolled back into the economy. Because that car was bought and is being maintained, other employment was created, and a flowthrough started to happen.

Because you raise the minimum wage, it doesn't necessarily mean that the price goes up — but you create new consumers. If you've been to Norway, you'd recognize that the system works very well. If you've done any traveling around the world, you'd know that flowthrough economics works, because people living on the social assistance that this government is paying, the minimum wage that this government is encouraging, don't actually contribute from the economy, but it costs the economy money to subsidize them.

I'm just amazed that the minister stands there.... I shouldn't be, because we know that the government

[ Page 13003 ]

has been in a lot of disarray for some two years. But he hasn't consulted with the other ministries as to what the cost of raising the minimum wage actually is. To simply stand there as a minister of this government and say, "That's somebody else's jurisdiction; we don't talk about that; we don't know how it will impact the social services ministry," flabbergasts me. It shows that this government doesn't understand economics, doesn't have control of the situation and that they don't speak to each other — perhaps because they're now involved in a leadership race and one group is supporting one person and another group is supporting the other person, and there's no coherency happening. That's why this province is going backwards in the economy rather than forwards.

Thousands of people are laid off in this province. When their Ul runs out, which is quicker than ever because of the changes that were made federally, they're going to end up on social assistance. As those numbers grow, and we're going to see that happen late this summer and early fall, then we have to include other jobs — good-paying jobs where that flowthrough effect will happen and we will actually get people out there spending dollars, consuming products, creating wealth and paying taxes.

Will the minister at least give some assurance to this House that he is going to speak to some other members of the executive council as to what the effects will be of encouraging people to get off the social assistance roll, and what that cost will be to either social assistance or to the economy by raising the minimum wage to an amount that will see people start their own lives rather than be stuck on the social assistance rolls?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have to confess that I am getting a little bit confused. I thought we were doing the estimates for the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It's easy to confuse you.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Perhaps that's correct, and I apologize for that, but I do the best I can here. I'm not perfect, but I do the best I can.

The member opposite talked at some length about his record as an employer. I don't know that that's part of these estimates, but I would tell the member that I also have spent some years as an employer. I may have employed a few more people than he might have employed opposite. I can tell you that I'm pretty pleased with my record too. In fact, I'm not going to discuss it in detail here, as you did on yours, but I would welcome you to investigate and check into the records — I think you could find them — and find out what I did as an employer and how I did it. I'd welcome you doing that.

He talks about my reluctance to discuss the minimum wage, and that there is some kind of negligence on my part in that I have not discussed it with other members in cabinet. He has no way of knowing what is discussed in cabinet. He has no way of knowing what conversations have taken place between myself and other ministers regarding the minimum wage or any other issue.

What he doesn't understand — and I appreciate he's quite new to the House — are the procedures of this House. The procedure and the principle of this House to discuss the minimum wage — and I'm not saying that's not something you may want to discuss and may have good reason for discussing — is that you would discuss it with the minister who has responsibility for it. Otherwise every minister that stands here can discuss everything that goes on in government — and maybe it's your purpose — but we could be here until the end of this year discussing. It's for you, Mr. Member, to fall within the parameters that have been established by parliamentary procedure and discuss this issue with the one that has the responsibility for administering it.

MR. BLENCOE: I've quite enjoyed listening to the debate these last few days, except for the issue of closure yesterday, which was unfortunate, of course, for the people of British Columbia. I've been interested in some of the philosophical debate that's been expressed and the thoughts that have been given by both sides of the House. Although this minister may not have this issue specifically detailed to his ministry, his ministry is important in terms of how we reflect on society, how we approach government, how we treat individuals and protect individual liberty.

I've heard this minister and others of his government talk about how they stand for individualism, free enterprise and all those things. They suggest that they protect those very things and that they're the best at doing that. They infer too that they wish everybody to be self-employed or to take care of themselves. They infer that the system we have today allows everybody to attain great heights economically, socially or otherwise.

[12:30]

The world is somewhat changed. We have a different world, and we have to reflect on that. Governments all over the western world realize we're dealing with a different world, different economies, different scales and different ways of approaching problems.

Mr. Chairman, because I think we've been entering into a useful, perhaps somewhat philosophical, debate, I'd just like to put on the record some thoughts about this kind of government, reflecting toward the right wing of the political spectrum in this country, put in perspective about which political organizations have really defended individual liberty and self-employment so that people are able to attain their own position in society or be their own boss. Because that's often what this government is trying to give the impression of: that they are fighting for those issues, that they are the best at it.

One of the great myths of Canadian politics is that this thing that this government talked about — individual liberty, freedom, free enterprise, whatever you want to call it — is best fostered by those on the right side of the political spectrum. The flip side of that, given out by those who say they defend it best, those on the right, is that supposedly those in the center or

[ Page 13004 ]

slightly left of the political spectrum want to — and this is the language we continue to hear over and over again, reflecting on other jurisdictions — foster the power of the state at the expense of the individual Canadian. In a nutshell, that's probably the kind of debate we've come down to in this province and this country — and much of it is myth; much of it is rhetoric. Much of it is how much you can spend on advertising to convince the public that it's true.

Well, analysis of political history in this country shows that, in fact, it has been those in the centre or slightly left of the political spectrum who have persistently championed civil rights and individualism — which supposedly this government wishes to protect, and they think they have a mandate or have cornered the market on it.

For instance, I can recall quite vividly during the Trudeau years with the War Measures Act — just a side issue perhaps. It was the New Democrats who saw through that suspension of individual rights and voted against that very infringement. But the myth persists, carefully nurtured by the Conservatives and the Liberals in federal politics, and by Social Credit in British Columbia.

One of the deepest desires of people is to exercise control over their own lives. It's this natural desire to be, if you will, your own boss — and I keep hearing reference to it in this chamber — that is played on by those on the political right. Economically, it is the cry of free enterprise, which is appropriated by the Conservatives — in this province, Social Credit — to appeal to people's desires to run their own affairs. I heard this again in these estimates. There's an inkling and cry from this government that that's what they're really all about. But, Mr. Chairman, a look at economic reality shows that those on the political right cannot and have not delivered on such promises. They haven't done it.

The notion of free or private enterprise can refer to two different things. On the one hand, it can refer to workers who are self-employed, whether they work alone, as in the case of artists or things like that, or in a group, as in the case of family farms or many small businesses that I've heard talked about on both sides of the House. But free enterprise can also refer to big business — this government knows all about that — in which a relatively small number of managers give orders to people, and a much larger number of employees take orders and have very little say in the running of that enterprise.

MR. PETERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I hate to interrupt the member when he's in a full rant, but I really can't see the relevance of what he's talking about relative to the estimates of the Minister of Social Services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a reasonable point of order. I am confident the hon. member will direct his comments to the mandate of the Minister of Social Services, vote 52.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I hear what the member has to say, but again it's within the confines of the tone of debate that is coming from the other side, in terms of their protection of the individual. That's why, for instance, they write the letters they do to people: go back to work; you can take care of yourselves. It's that approach to government that I want to try and deal with. It really hasn't been the history of those on the political right.

One of the things this government and others on the right expressed is this issue of self-employment, and that somehow people can be self-employed. Rightwing governments try to appropriate that for their own ends; they're the ones who defend that. In this country in the last 50 or 60 years, governments that have traditionally been more right of the spectrum have set the policies for this country, in terms of where we're going. Self-employment in the labour force in 1941 was over 24 percent in Canada and British Columbia. By 1990 the number of self-employed had dropped to 13.9 percent. These governments say they defend and bring in policies that help people. Yet in their position on people being able to take care of themselves and having the opportunities for self-employment, the policies of the right have not delivered.

In theory any particular individual has a chance to become an employer or a self-employed worker — which is the kind of expression from this government: "We will create the right environment for that to happen." The odds against that happening are great. At best, it's like a game of musical chairs with many more players than chairs. When the music stops, most people are left standing in the cold. What's the alternative?

Today the state does intervene to regulate the economy, especially under Conservative, Liberal and Social Credit governments. They tend to foster and intervene on behalf of large corporations at the expense of small businesses. My good colleague can talk about that. They also intervene against the self-employed. Neither big government nor big business can give ordinary Canadians what they want, both in the workplace and the communities, and that is a real say in the running of their lives.

We cannot somehow, though the government tries to foster it, return to the kind of economy that was abolished during the nineteenth century by.... Large corporations — public and private — are here to stay for a long time, though their structures could be made more democratic. A degree of government intervention in our mixed economy will continue to be necessary. Canada has a mixed economy, and it's here to stay. That's what this country was born on. Social service measures that Canadians value, such as health care and unemployment insurance, must be protected and improved. But the prime function of government shouldn't be the giving of handouts — I agree with that — but rather regulating fairly the economic environment, encouraging small business enterprises and economic self-management.

That's what we should be doing, but the facts are that those on the political right have not delivered on those very things they try to say they do. They haven't done it. The facts and figures show that those things haven't happened at all. We need governments that would encourage what this government thinks they

[ Page 13005 ]

do: self-employed workers and worker-oriented enterprises, from family farms to more democratically run organizations and economic institutions.

I've listened to a lot of debate. I've listened to this same government try to say they believe in individualism and that people can take care of themselves in the economy, but I think it's time to put aside the myth that the kind of free enterprise extolled by the political right can deliver the goods like self-determination. The track record is not there; it hasn't happened. It's time to look for more imaginative solutions to our economic and social problems; solutions that really begin to live up to the ideals of liberty that are cherished by most Canadians.

We need policies that encourage people. For instance, we have a system of social welfare in this province that says that if you go out and get a part-time job and earn more than $100, as an incentive, you're slapped down. What a ludicrous situation when we want to encourage people to go out and participate in the community and get meaningful positions in our society. If they get an opportunity for part-time to phase out of social assistance but earn more than $100, they go back into the system they're trying to get out of. We need to be more innovative in our policies for British Columbians in terms of finding a meaningful position in society.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I appreciate the opportunity to introduce some young people in the Legislature — young people who create what we're doing in here, because that's what it's all about. Seated in the gallery today are grade 7 students from Belmont Elementary School in Brookswood, our biggest neighbourhood in Langley. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm going to be very brief because I know that the plan is to adjourn, and it has been a long week for most of us. I just can't help but make a few quick comments with regard to the statements that the member has just finished making. I agree with you, Mr. Member, it truly is time to put the myths aside.

You have been debating political systems, and I think the evidence speaks for itself. In every place in the world where socialism has taken its place with big government and central planning, the country has been led into bankruptcy and failure. There's no better example of that today than in eastern Europe, which all the people could see. It's now happening within our own borders in Ontario. You will see the implications of that very soon.

I agree that the socialists have certainly been people who have brought forward noble issues, and they've talked about them many times. I'm not saying that you don't have a good social conscience and that you haven't brought forward noble issues. But your political philosophy doesn't allow you to deliver it as a party. That's the problem with you. You talk about the social programs that we have in British Columbia. You may have talked about them, Mr. Member, but Social Credit brought forward every single one of those programs that we talk about today that benefit the people of this province. Every single one of them were introduced by the Social Credit government. That speaks for itself.

What I suggest to you, Mr. Member, is that you think about it over this weekend. When you come back on Monday, bring your good social conscience, move the chairs and join our side. You provide the conscience, we'll provide the management to make it all happen.

And with that, Mr. Member, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[12:45]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.