[ Page 13079 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 13079

Tabling Documents –– 13079

Oral Questions

Information leaks from office of the Attorney-General. Mr. Sihota –– 13079

Resignation of former Minister of Finance. Mr. Sihota –– 13079

Expo lands. Mr. Cashore –– 13080

Island Highway expansion plans. Mr. Couvelier –– 13081

Music '91 contracts. Ms. Pullinger –– 13081

GST on furniture and appliances. Mr. Peterson –– 13081

Royal Vancouver Yacht Club parking lot. Ms. Marzari –– 13081

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

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 13083

Ms. Smallwood, Ms. Marzari, Mr. Rose, Mr. Blencoe, Mr. Cashore, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Michael, Mr. Barlee, Hon. Mr. Weisgerber, Mr. Miller, Mr. Zirnhelt

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 6). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Rabbitt) –– 13108

Mr. Rose

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

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 13109

Mr. Sihota –– 13109

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 13110

Forest Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 13). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 13110

Mr. Miller

Third reading

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

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 13111

Ms. Edwards, Ms. Smallwood, Mr. Michael, Ms. Marzari, Mr. Blencoe, Ms. Pullinger, Hon. Mr. Richmond

On vote 53: ministry operations –– 13137

Ms. Smallwood

Supply Act (No – 2), 1991 (Bill 16). Hon. J. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 13142

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

MR. BARNES: Id like to ask the members to join me in welcoming a good friend from Brockendale Art Gallery who is with us this afternoon, Mr. Thor Froslev. I'm sure he will enjoy his visit listening to the deliberations today in the House, so let's make him welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yesterday I introduced a son of the assistant deputy minister in my ministry who was visiting the House. To provide equal treatment today, Id like to introduce his other son, Michael Travers, who is here with his friend Britt Hoeffer. I'd like the House to welcome them, please.

MR. BARLEE: I'd like to introduce two sets of visitors. One is my wife, who has been my helpmate for many years, Mrs. Kathleen Barlee from Osoyoos, and the other is Mr. and Mrs. Bob Ellis from the very scenic town of Oliver, British Columbia.

MR. HUBERTS: In the House today we have some guests from the United States: Glen and Esther Martin from St. David, Arizona, a little place just south of Tucson, along with their two children, Tammy and Travis. Would the House please help me welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In speaking briefly to this legislation it establishes a comprehensive framework for providing access to government information and the protection of personal information held by government. It confirms the government's commitment to openness and accountability, which are two fundamental aspects of our democratic society. In addition, it assures the people of British Columbia that the privacy of their personal information in government records will be protected.

Specifically the bill will give the public the right of access to information in government records except in limited circumstances, give individuals the right of access to their own personal information in government records except in limited circumstances and give individuals the right to request correction of their personal information held in government records. It will protect personal information from unauthorized correction and disclosure and will establish an independent review mechanism by providing the appointment of an information and privacy commissioner with the power to make binding recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation attempts to balance the public's right to access with the legitimate need for confidentiality in certain circumstances. The legislation meets the standards of access and privacy protection in other Canadian jurisdictions and adopts the principles set out in the March, 1991, report of the ombudsman on this particular issue. The questions raised in balancing the rights of access with the needs of confidentiality are very complex. The interest groups concerned with these issues have asked for the opportunity to present their views before the legislation is passed. For that reason we do not intend to proceed with this bill past first reading during the current session. The bill will be distributed widely, and the public will be encouraged to submit their comments over the next six months.

Bill 12 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the twenty-second annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act.

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1991.

Oral Questions

INFORMATION LEAKS FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Janet Perotti, a campaign worker for the Premier, went to the Premier and expressed her concern about leaks emanating from the office of the Attorney-General. On that basis the Premier, as is my understanding, went to the Attorney-General and asked him to plug leaks within his ministry.

With that background, will the Attorney-General now confirm to the House that the Premier pressured him to terminate employees in his office, with the intent to plug those leaks?

MR. VANDER ZALM: Who leaked that information to you?

MR. SIHOTA: You know, Bill, don't you?

HON. MR. FRASER: It is with great pleasure that I confirm to the House that no such pressure was exerted.

RESIGNATION OF FORMER
MINISTER OF FINANCE

MR. SIHOTA: Question again to the Attorney-General. Did your department render to the Premier a legal opinion that investigated the matter of the former Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich and the Islands, and did that opinion indicate that although there was "a technical breach of the provisions of the

[ Page 13080 ]

Financial Institutions Act, " that breach did not justify firing?

HON. MR. FRASER: The opinions rendered between a solicitor and a client, of course, are confidential. That is the case in this instance.

MR. SIHOTA: Those opinions were rendered to the Premier and the Attorney-General. They were paid for by the taxpayer. They were not opinions secured by the Premier in a private capacity. Therefore they are not protected by that privilege.

Let me ask the Attorney-General the following question: did you receive an opinion from the law firm of Russell and Du Moulin that indicated there was no violation of the law concerning matters that involved the former Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. FRASER: Again, solicitor-client privilege prevails.

MR. SIHOTA: Are you saying, Mr. Attorney-General, that the solicitor-client privilege applies to the letter from the law firm of Russell and Du Moulin? Am I to understand that that is your position?

HON. MR. FRASER: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I said that when we secure opinions from any firm, it is our property. It's a client-solicitor privilege.

EXPO LANDS

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Lands and Parks. On May 3, 1990, the Minister of Crown Lands responded to a question from the first member for Vancouver East regarding the ongoing liabilities of the government with regard to the Expo lands. Yesterday that same minister said that his ministry is not responsible for the lands, but he was not able to inform the House who is responsible. Can the minister tell the House when his ministry lost responsibility for the Expo lands, and who now has responsibility for administering the Expo lands contract?

HON. MR. PARKER: This ministry never had responsibility for the lands. It was handled by Economic Development and the Crown corporation.

MR. CASHORE: It would appear that when we look at this cabinet and try to find out who has responsibility for the Expo lands, the lights are on but nobody's home. This minister just said that it was not his responsibility, but I just informed the minister that he answered a question in that capacity just over a year ago.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Officials in the Ministry of Government Services have told me that while they are generally responsible for administering government contracts, this is not the case with the Expo lands. They've told me that the Ministry of Finance is responsible for the financial aspects of this deal, while the Ministry of Environment is responsible for the environmental aspects. The question is: can the Minister of Environment tell the House by what deadline the province must finish the required cleanup of the Expo site in order to satisfy its contractual obligations to Concord Pacific?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Had the member been clear about what he wanted to ask yesterday, we might have been able to help you yesterday. The problem with the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Would you like to hear it answered?

The problem was with the question. There are seven or eight contracts involved, and the member did not specify which contract he was operating under. But I'd like to help with the answer.

The sale agreement was the responsibility of a Crown corporation, and the title did get conveyed through that agreement to the purchaser. Concurrently there were additional contracts, which I have to mention so that the member can then decide which one he was referring to.

[2:15]

There is a contract for the hazardous waste treatment studies, which is between the Ministry of Environment and six private companies. In addition there is a soil remediation, investigations and planning contract between the ministry and the soil remediation group of consultants. There are only a couple more. There is a contract for soil remediation and construction management between the Ministry of Environment and Sandwell and Concord. There is a protocol agreement between Concord and the Ministry of Environment with respect to parcel 8. The final soils agreement between Concord and the Ministry of Environment on behalf of the province, depending on which part of the project you're talking about.... I really think there's information in the public domain. If the member had read it and the brochure that was provided, he would have seen the description of the process and how long it's intended to take. If you can't see it in that, because of the nature of the details of the contract, then you could just ask through notice of a motion, and I would provide the answer.

MR. CASHORE: The public wants to know the details of all of the contracts and deadlines. The question was: what is the deadline for those contracts to be fulfilled?

My next question to the minister is: can the minister tell the House what financial penalties the government faces if it is not able to finish soil remediation on the Expo site by the stipulated time?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, if the member wished to do a real service to the public, he would start dealing with accurate statements. If he had asked me these questions a few weeks earlier, before making misstatements, I would have been able to have helped.

The answer to the question is tied somewhat to all of these contracts. There is no penalty in effect at this

[ Page 13081 ]

time. The schedule is being met at this time, and there are no delays due to environmental issues at this time.

ISLAND HIGHWAY EXPANSION PLANS

MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It's my understanding that the minister has referred expansion plans for the Island Highway to a committee of the Capital Regional District. In view of motions from the View Royal council and the Central Saanich council regarding safety issues — View Royal's concerns relating to the area between Millstream and Helmcken Roads, and Central Saanich's relating to the Island View intersection — I'd be interested in the minister's comments regarding how we are to deal with the emerging safety issues, given the current paralyzation of the process.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct: we did enter into an agreement with the Capital Regional District to form a committee that would look at the various transportation issues in the Capital Regional District. That committee is made up of representatives from the communities the member mentioned, as well as the other communities in the CRD — also B.C. Transit, B.C. Ferries and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, We have a very clear understanding that if there is an issue of safety which it is felt should be dealt with on an emergency basis, the issue should be taken to the committee. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways would respond if it is the recommendation of the committee.

MUSIC '91 CONTRACTS

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question for the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism. When did the minister conclude his investigation concerning conflict of interest in the awarding of security contracts for Music '91?

HON. MR. DIRKS: At the present time we are looking at all the contracts and how they were awarded.

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that a former associate of a firm known as Intrepid Security was engaged by Music '91 to approve security contracts for events?

HON. MR. DIRKS: As I said earlier, we are looking at all the contracts and how they were awarded. Certainly we'll look at that as well.

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that he was approached five weeks ago with this issue of conflict?

HON. MR. DIRKS: By whom, Mr. Speaker?

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that a majority of the contracts awarded by Music '91 for security purposes were awarded to Intrepid?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The fog seems to be very thick over there. I have said that we are looking at all the contracts and how they were awarded, and I leave it at that.

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that he's investigating conflict of interest in the food services contract allocation and the contract to hire musicians and other acts?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I think it is just prudent management to look at the whole scenario and all the contracts that were awarded. Certainly we are in that process now.

MS. PULLINGER: Can the minister explain why the former associate of Intrepid has not been removed from his position?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Let's hang them first, and then we'll give them a trial. Obviously you have to do the investigation before you can take any action.

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that he has already apologized to the security people about the allocation of this contract?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I did talk to the people from Intrepid, and I did say that we would look at the awarding of those contracts. I've said nothing to him that I haven't told the House right now.

GST ON FURNITURE AND APPLIANCES

MR. PETERSON: I'll direct my question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. In view of the reports that furniture and appliance prices have actually increased since the imposition of the GST, rather than decrease as suggested by Ottawa, what steps has the minister taken to investigate this situation on behalf of British Columbia consumers?

HON. MR. RABBITT: The GST is a federal jurisdiction. The provincial government does not have a specific role to play, although I have been keeping track of what the effects are. The member is referring to the consumer information office's latest press release, which indicated that across Canada prices have gone up. In British Columbia we have not received any complaints, but I will confirm that we will continue to monitor it.

ROYAL VANCOUVER YACHT CLUB
PARKING LOT

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Minister of Lands and Parks. The Royal Vancouver Yacht Club in Vancouver has applied to build a members' parking-lot under the adjacent park — Hastings Mill Park. This use is not

[ Page 13082 ]

consistent with the provincial government's requirements when it granted the land to the city in the first place. Has the minister decided to preserve Hastings Mill Park by refusing to give approval through OIC — or whatever mechanism you intend to use — to the construction of this private parking-lot for the yacht club?

HON. MR. PARKER: The property in question was Crown land granted with covenant to the city of Vancouver. Through public process the city of Vancouver has requested a variance on that covenant to allow the construction of an underground parking-lot and the replacement of the surface area to parks board requirements. They have made their request to the ministry to modify the covenant. We have taken that under consideration, met with some concerned citizens and suggested to them that if they really take exception to the decision of the parks board and the city council of Vancouver, then they should lobby the appropriate groups — namely, the parks board and Vancouver city council — and undertake to change their minds. In the meantime, to accommodate them, this ministry will not raise the OIC for at least 90 days.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to practice recommendation No. 3 in the standing orders, I am advising the House of the following schedule for the remainder of this week. I have been unable to reach an agreement, as suggested in standing orders, with the opposition House Leader, although I hasten to point out that he was most cooperative. Therefore I have no alternative but to advise the House accordingly.

At 9:30 this evening we will call the question on the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. At that time, approximately 18½ hours will have elapsed in debate on these estimates, in addition to the extensive debate during interim supply. Over the last four or five years the average amount of time spent on this ministry's estimates has been about nine hours, so that amount of time is approximately double the average over the last four or five years.

It is the government's intention to conclude the business of this House by Friday, June 28, 1991 at 1 p.m. Therefore votes will be called on the following bills before that time.

There has already been ample opportunity for extensive debate on the ministries included in the supply bill, and it is our intention to provide sufficient time for members to debate the other bills if required. If it appears to the opposition that the time allocated is not sufficient, then I ask them to please let me know as soon as possible, and we can discuss the possibility of extending the sitting hours further than has already been done.

The bills that will be voted upon are Bill 13, the Forest Amendment Act, 1991; Bill 15, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991; and Bill 16, the supply bill covering the Ministries of Health, Education, and Social Services and Housing. With cooperation, Mr. Speaker, the business of this House could be concluded tomorrow without any difficulty.

All members will recognize that the supply bill is merely an administrative function confirming those spending estimates that have been debated at length by the whole House for over 50 hours and already passed by the House sitting as Committee of the Whole.

Consequently, I am advising the House at this time that tomorrow we will sit from 9 a.m. until noon and from 2 p.m. until 10 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is being viewed by the Chair as a ministerial statement. If there is a response, I will accept one response.

MR. ROSE: We're very concerned about this turn of events, Mr. Speaker. It is true that I have been approached a couple of times for a consultation by the government House Leader — a charming fellow — knowing full well that if we didn't cooperate, we were going to get it through closure anyway.

We don't feel, since we didn't even sit here until May, that we have had sufficient debate on estimates. Just going back a few years.... I don't know what he said were the total hours that we've had so far; I think he said something like 50 in total on three. Well, in 1977 we sat 262 hours for estimates; in 1978, 126 hours; in 1979, 209 hours; 1981, 216 hours. We have always gone over, except for one time when we went less than 100 hours. So we don't think that we've had sufficient time. We're here to work. The fact that we came here late is really not the responsibility of the opposition. It was an example of turmoil and chaos within the ranks of the government, and that's why we're late.

[2:30]

So we have no intention whatsoever of cooperating in any way with the guillotine, no matter how friendly the executioner happens to be. We have important public business. I'm told that after an interim supply bill of something like $5 billion, we're going to be asked sometime this week to approve a $10 billion addition, which is about f if teen-sixteenths of the total budget. Cut and run again. The Ben Johnsons of the legislative set.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: They've got lots of dopes over there too.

We thank the minister for his friendly little notice. I want to tell him that if he gets his estimates and his supply bill, he's going to pay for it.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would ask leave of the House for the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education, Social Services, Housing and Women's Issues and the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services to sit this afternoon.

Leave granted.

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

[ Page 13083 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm just going through my head trying to decide what issues I should eliminate, because the government will be calling closure. Should I eliminate the issue of infant development programs....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry to interrupt you, hon. member. Hon. members, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is trying valiantly to make a point here, and we're making so much noise that she can't be heard.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I apologize for not being altogether focused on the next item on the agenda, because I'm going through in my mind what issues in my estimates files — that a number of people have asked me to deal with — I should not deal with in this session. Should it be the infant development program, with its massive waiting-list of families trying to decide whether they should adopt out those children, because the community programs aren't in place? Should I eliminate the emergency shelters issue in this province, where families cannot be accommodated by those resources? Shall I eliminate the drug and alcohol counselling or the programs for teens, where we've already seen that over 53 percent of all those children living on Vancouver streets are suffering from significant drug or alcohol abuse situations, with a ministry that is not delivering those programs? Shall I eliminate the issue of information of sexually transmitted diseases and whether the ministry is living up to its responsibility as a parent to provide that information and training to kids living on the streets? Shall I eliminate the issue of child abuse counselling and its effect on the children and families of this province? Or should I eliminate the issues of poverty, of school lunch programs and of the number of children and women lining up for food because of the policies of this government?

Quite frankly, I am having some difficulty trying to decide what issues that we have yet to discuss should be cut off because this government wants to get on with its personal political agenda. Should I eliminate the issues of the family initiative projects, community development workers, family support workers or transition houses? The list goes on and on. This government is in its fifth year and has yet to resolve many of these significant issues and show some sort of indication that they are dealing with the people's business.

I want to start by asking this minister about the infant development programs. I know the minister was not in the House when I raised this with the Minister of Health, so I'm going to go through some of that information again for him. One of the programs — and I have a list of a number in the province — impacted by the tremendous population growth in this province is in south Surrey. At this time they have 56 infants on their waiting-list. They need at least two and maybe three staff members to deal with the impact.

I want to talk to the minister about the lives of those families and children on those waiting-lists. One infant's first name begins with "R." The boy is seven months old and has alcoholic parents. He was referred in January, 1991. R has fetal alcohol syndrome and is multiply handicapped. He's been on the waiting-list for four months. I wonder if the minister has any idea what it's like for a family trying to deal with an infant with fetal alcohol syndrome and the fact that the infant cries and cries and cries. The decision that the family has to make is whether or not the community is going to be able to support them in raising the child.

Another child, D., is a very small premature baby, now seven and half months, who was referred from Royal Columbian Hospital as a very-high-risk-baby. The family is Vietnamese, and they've been on the waiting-list for four months.

Another infant is a little boy whose first name starts with D. At three months of age, this infant was diagnosed as hearing-impaired and then as having Down's syndrome. The parents were in crisis, needing help with the decision of whether to keep the baby or put it up for adoption. Genetic testing finally revealed that the condition is not Down's syndrome, but anomalies on the eighteenth and twenty-first chromosomes. The infant development program has visited twice to help with that family's crisis, but the family is still on the waiting-list — waiting to see whether they will be eligible and whether the program can support them and their infant.

Another little boy, transferred from Burnaby, has Villaret's syndrome, a rare but pervasive handicap condition. He is now 15 months old and has been on our waiting-list for four months. A little girl whose initial is N. Is referred because of a severe seizure disorder which became manifest at seven months of age. Strong medication is required to control the seizures, and she has been on the waiting-list for three months. Another little girl with neonatal abstinence syndrome is in foster care in Aldergrove — another Vancouver child. You see, Mr. Minister, a lot of the children that are NAS are ending up in the suburbs in foster care, but there are no programs for them. She's already demonstrating severe behavioural difficulties at 16 months of age. She's been on the waiting-list for two months.

Another little girl has parents who are mentally handicapped. They could use home support services provided by the infant development program. Because of their high caseloads and long waiting-list, this little girl unfortunately will be placed on a lower priority, and it is unlikely that she will be seen by that program. The list goes on and on. I wonder if the minister can tell us, given the fact that your community programs have been cut by over $1 million, what kind of hope these families have?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, to keep the record straight, my ministry programs have not been cut. Where there have been adjustments in the amount of money allotted to a particular program, it is only because that program was underutilized in the past, and there's no point in putting more funding into a

[ Page 13084 ]

particular program than what will be used. It's better to allocate that to another program that will need and can use the funding.

On the matter of the infant development program, I appreciate the difficulties that families have in dealing with these young children. It's undoubtedly a very severe problem and a very difficult situation, but the government has responded very well. In 1989-90 there were 1,990 spaces, and the budget was $2,690,000. In 1990-91 there were 2,055 spaces — a 3 percent increase — and the budget was $3,080,000, a 14 percent increase. In 1991-92, this year's budget, we have 2, 200 spaces — a 7 percent increase — and a $3.56 million budget, a 15 percent increase over the past year.

In addition to that, we have a respite program for the parents of these children. There are 1,300 children being served, and the budget for that is $4.6 million.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm interested in the minister's figures, because according to your budget, which we are currently debating in your estimates, community projects — and I assume this is one of them — have been cut back by $1.3 million. The fact is that it's a false economy. When we're dealing with issues such as the infant development program, it's very clear that if the money were put into programs like this to allow families to stay together and provide parents with the support necessary to keep those children, the ministry itself would not have to be dealing with children being put into the care of the ministry on a voluntary basis, and certainly it would not have to be put into a situation where it is becoming clearer that families are unable to support these children.

The minister has indicated that there has been an increase in the program. With the waiting-list on this one program growing — in this community in particular, and I suspect elsewhere — from an average of 30 infants to 56 now, can the minister make a commitment now to fund preventive and supportive programs as a priority, and will he reconsider this cut in the overall budget by $1 million?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This program is not under community projects, so it's not included there. The community support services budget for '91-92 shows a 12.7 percent increase in funding over '90-91, which works out to $30.21 million.

[2:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am looking for a specific commitment, Mr. Minister, and quoting numbers off your sheet isn't helping. What is very clear is that the families having to deal with these children on a daily basis need to know, before they make their decisions about their infants, whether the ministry is going to support their needs in their community. Will you make that commitment?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we do a very good job of providing services to people requiring this program and the many other programs that we put out. Our policy is that we provide the best service w can, but we recognize that there is a limit on how many resources we have for any one particular program. As the numbers I have read out now indicate, the budget for this particular program has increased substantially over the preceding years. I think that shows that the government and the ministry appreciate the need for the program. We are doing what is necessary to meet the increasing demand; we will continue to do that. But I am not prepared to say that we will expand the program without limitation, because we have to balance our funds to provide a lot of other programs as well. We recognize the importance of this one, but all of the other programs we provide are very important too.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I've been very reluctant to argue in this debate for more money for any one program; I've been very reluctant to argue for more money generally. I have argued throughout the debate for more efficient and more effective spending, and I will continue to do that. But in this particular issue, I want to do more. I want to argue the point that, very clearly, this is a resource that needs to be dealt with and to be given the attention and support it deserves.

I want to talk about some of the breakdown of infants and why their families end up as clients for infant development programs. We read last year, in support of this program, a letter from a family whose infant was premature and spent a number of months in Children's Hospital, and about how that family was trying to deal with learning how to help that infant. I learned something from their letter. I learned that a premature infant who is in an incubator for a number of months.... Even when they are strong enough and able to sustain life outside of that incubator, because that infant has been in that kind of environment for so long, you can't hold the infant. An infant who has been in an incubator for that length of time.... When you pick that infant up, the infant goes rigid and screams, because they are unused to being handled. I began to imagine what it was like for a parent — perhaps with other children at home — not knowing how to deal with that new life that was part of their family, and the stresses involved with having to try to come to grips with that kind of impact. As a mother, I couldn't even begin to imagine trying to deal with that.

I'm looking at the numbers here.... These are old numbers, so I expect that they have increased significantly since then. These numbers were in a brief by the infant development program in April 1989. They talk about the kinds of situations they find in dealing with infants and families' needs. A significant number of the children suffer from either fetal alcohol syndrome or neonatal abstinence syndrome. These are children who have been born addicted either to alcohol or to drugs. A number of those children have been put up for adoption; a number of those children are in foster homes. A number of those foster homes have not had the necessary training to deal with a drug-addicted infant.

Again, I want to make an appeal to the minister as strongly as possible that these kinds of programs — programs that support families in raising those infants.... This is the first chance for those babies; let's

[ Page 13085 ]

make sure that it isn't the last chance for those babies. Let's not write off those families and those babies. I believe that support for those programs is not only the best possible spending option for government but, as I said, is also possibly the first chance those children have to live a long and productive life.

I want to go on and talk about children who are a little older. This has to do with a comment the minister made a little earlier about children in care, in foster care in particular, and the support. Id like to go back in on this. If I understood the minister correctly, the support that the minister is committed to providing for the transition from age 18 into adulthood for those children currently in foster care is to allow those families to continue their relationship in some fashion with those children.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I too have seen the children who the member opposite talks about. There are children with alcohol syndrome and with a drug dependency syndrome. As the member opposite may well have done, I visited Dr. Segal's ward at Sunny Hill Hospital, talked to Dr. Segal for some time and saw the children who were being cared for there.

It's hard to stand and look at children who are so sensitive that even light is more than they can tolerate when they're first born. They spend their time in a dark room because the light causes stress for them. The difficulty that's experienced in trying to feed those children — it takes hours for them to consume what another little baby would consume in a few minutes; the difficulty that the children have as they're growing up and the care and special attention that they need.... Those children, particularly the ones affected by the drug syndrome, show no outward appearance of the severe emotional problems they have, and for all intents and purposes they are in every way normal, beautiful children. I was told how they cry for hours too. When they are born they begin to cry immediately, not for milk and food that most babies cry for but for drugs, because that's what their little bodies crave.

It is a sad situation — no question about it. The program that we have has served well and is very good. I can say to the member opposite that I am so pleased with the program that if I had more money to put into some program within the ministry, this is one that would certainly have favoured consideration. But we face a limitation. We can do so much. We have allocated a continually increasing amount of resource for the program, and I am sure we will continue to do that in the years to come.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister can make some comments about the support for foster children reaching the age of majority?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The notes that I have on that.... The ministry is committed to assisting and supporting children in care who would take responsibility for and be involved in planning together their transition for independence. The ministry is currently developing policy to improve services to assist children in care to achieve maximum independence when they turn 19. If the member wishes to ask specific questions on that, perhaps my staff can assist me in what is happening at this time. The program is in the development stage. It was last fall, if my memory is correct, when the deputy talked to me about the need for this type of a program. The feeling was — because the ministry does in fact become the parent to the child that is no longer able to be with its family — that we would also extend the same kind of care and concern for the well-being of that individual when he or she reaches the age of 19 to help with the transition. The ministry has been developing a program, as the notes suggest, to carry that out. I may be able to provide you with more detail. The note that I have here says that after-care policy will be considered in legislative review. So it's a program that we are developing.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I understand that last comment, can we look for some changes in January 1994?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, it's anticipated the program should be ready within a year, not three years.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sure that the minister is not referring to the election and the New Democrats coming to government and showing some real leadership in this issue. But what I want to emphasize for the minister, since he's indicated that his staff are reviewing this issue, is that for a lot of families — and in particular the children in care — the whole trauma of finding themselves in care, regardless of the reason for that situation, often impacts the children in such a way that they are a number of years behind most children in school — if they manage to make it that far. For a number of those kids, even with the support of a good foster home, this means that at the age of 18 they may not have finished their grade 12. For a number of foster homes that I have heard from it causes a great deal of distress for them to understand that there will no longer be support for the child in that home.

If the ministry is looking at those kinds of issues, I would ask in particular that the ministry consider continuing support, on a short-term agreement perhaps, so that the family can stay together. Many families that don't have to deal with the trauma of separation and all that is entailed in a child ending up in care find that this transition to adulthood takes a much longer time than just reaching the magical age of adulthood. Many children need the support of their parents for a number of years, and I see no reason why a foster home should not at least have a transitional program in place.

I know that other members want to deal with some other issues, so we'll move onto those and perhaps come back later.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what the program that is being developed is for. It's exactly what was described by the member opposite.

[3:00]

MS. MARZARI: On Saturday, May 4, Frances Bula wrote in the Sun: "If you can find it, you can't afford it.

[ Page 13086 ]

If you can afford it, it's no good. If it's good, you can't get it." This is referring to child care in British Columbia.

Child care in this province is in a state which is not shared by any other province in this country. Every other province has decided to take a stand on child care administratively, financially and fiscally Every other province in this country has decided to pull itself into the twentieth century. We are the province that stands out there in left field — or right field, we should say — resisting the twentieth century.

We are the only province in this whole land that doesn't support its child care centres by offering them — as they are small businesses — a direct operating fund to help them through the end of the month. We're the only province that doesn't view its child care centres as an investment in the future of the children. In this province we continue to operate our child care system in an ad hoc, unstructured, interministerial way with five ministers involved without rhyme or reason.

When a parent needs child care, that parent is faced with a barrage of regulations, rules, subsidies that may or may not arrive, and eligibility requirements. That parent is faced with a deficit of good licensed care in this province. We have approximately 20,000 to 25,000 licensed spaces in this province, a fact we canvassed with the Minister of Health last week. Yet we have about 300,000 children who ostensibly could benefit from safe, licensed care.

A parent is faced with not being able to find a space very often, and eligibility requirements that often make it impossible to access decent child care at a price they can afford. A parent is often faced with the frustration and despair of having to go from unlicensed space to unlicensed space wondering where the next babysitter might come from. It's not a healthy way for a good chunk of our population to live. I refer to the mothers. It's not a good way for that demographic unit in our population, called mothers of young children, to conduct their lives.

This government will say: "Why are those mothers out working in the first place? They should be at home with their families. Why do they have children if they're not going to be in the home taking care of those children?" My point to you is: get real! Give me a break. What we have in this province right now are statistics that read as follows: the percentage of B.C. working women with school-age children in 1971 was 45 percent; in 1989 it was 75 percent.

All those jobs this government claimed they created were very often low-income and at the marginal end of the workforce. Granted those are jobs — and those jobs are filled by women.

In fact, 62 percent of women in the workforce in British Columbia right now have preschool children What that translates into is a huge demand on perhaps 300,000 women who more than occasionally are single women looking for child care so they can go to their job or seek employment each day. What does that translate into? The statistics I've got are those your government has pulled together over the last few years. They show that from zero to 36 months there are 61,821 children in this province needing some kind of non-parental care. The number of licensed spaces is 3,107. That puts 57,000 — almost 58,000 — children in some form of non-licensed care in this province. As I say, that could be a relative, the grandmother or the nice woman down the street. But that's almost 60,000 kids from zero to three years of age whose mothers are in the workforce and who do not have safe, licensed child care. That's what I would call a demand. That's what I would call pent-up anger and frustration on the part of 61,000 mothers — parents who might be looking for something better than what they've got.

From ages three to six we have another 60,000 children — double that for the number of parents — who are looking for group or family care. That's where we have the most licensed spaces in our province, almost 17,500. But there's still the difference from 59,000 three- to five-year-olds in non-licensed care. In other words, parents are going out to the neighbourhood, advertising in the newspaper and looking for someone to mind the kids.

For the over six- to 12-year-olds — these are kids in school — we have 173,815 kids who need care. These are very often the kinds of programs you find in the school after school is over. There is no reason why every school in our province shouldn't have a good quality, licensed after-school program that keeps the kids safe, active and thinking until 5:30 or 6:30 p.m., depending on when parents come home from work.

The fact is that we have only 8,889 licensed spaces. Think of all those schools in our province that don't have an after-school program. That's less than 10,000 spaces, leaving 165,000 kids with no place to go after school, other than perhaps an unlicensed space — the woman down the street.

We were talking this morning about kids on the street and about child neglect. We were talking this morning about what goes wrong. Let me suggest to you that part of our problem is that there are 165,000 kids between the ages of six and 12 in this province right now without anybody there for them after school in a licensed place — in the school possibly.

The question then becomes: how do we create a system of child care in this province that reflects the real needs — the twentieth-century needs — of working parents, most notably the real phenomenon of working mothers that has occurred in the last 40 to 50 years? How does this province, after the need has been proven by the statistics here and by the anger of the parents involved in trying to find child care, begin to develop a worthwhile, comprehensive system of child care? How does it go about the business of building the spaces or creating the spaces in existing schools to actually meet the need? Well, this province has decided, traditionally, just to stick its head in the sand, to take an ideological position that moms should somehow be at home, that children should be at home with their moms, and therefore there's no other question asked.

Because of the relentless pressure — obviously from working parents — gradually and very painfully over the last 30 years some program has been put together by hook or by crook. Piecemeal, band-aid solutions have been found. Different ministries have been

[ Page 13087 ]

dragged into this pot, this little jigsaw puzzle that's been created, and so now we've got ourselves 20,000 to 25,000 licensed spaces. But it's not good enough, Mr. Chairman. There have to be ways that we can do a better job on this score.

I want to know from the minister what the real budget is for child care in this province right now, separated out from special-needs children — the real budget for what this province is putting towards the development of a child care system. I would like the minister to address the issue of subsidy rates for parents who cannot afford the full cost of child care but are prepared to go partway — given what they earn — to help pay part of the cost. I'd like to know the minister's stance on the subsidy rates to parents who can't afford the full cost of child care. And finally, I'd like to know who's in charge this year. What is this government's policy du jour on child care? Is the Ministry of Social Services going to carry the load? Is it transferring the load over to the ministry for women? Where does the buck stop for child care in 1991?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The comments by the member opposite clearly indicate that the job isn't done until there's a space in society for every single child raised within the province. If you have so many hundred thousand children, you have to have so many hundred thousand spaces available, so that everyone is accommodated. I don't know what the final objective of the members opposite would be, but I guess if the process continues far enough, parents in this whole exercise will become redundant altogether, because their children will be cared for in almost every facet by the state. The state would own the children of the province and be responsible for them.

I think that the paramount responsibility for looking after children is the family's. Families make the arrangements to look after their children. I know there's a need for day care centres in many areas, and there's a considerable amount being done about that One of the ways it is being done is in cooperation with employers to put day care centres in the buildings where women work, so that they can have access to their children during the day. That's one of the acceptable ways that have been used. The other is that communities can get together to organize and establish day care centres; they're not prevented from doing that.

[3:15]

There are 17,200 children in the province that the government provides with either full-time or half-day subsidies. The cost to British Columbia for this year for that part of the program is $50.29 million. There's an additional $12.1 million set aside for this year within the Ministry of Government Services to take care of some additional programs. That will be announced very soon. Some of the concerns that the member opposite discussed will be partly answered by that.

The subsidy growth in the budget over the last three years. The year before last, the subsidy for day care was $33.55 million; a year ago it was $47.78 million; this year it's $50-29 million — a steadily increasing budget. The member makes much of unlicensed day care versus licensed day care. That's a debate I remember going through in detail a year ago. The member's position, of course, is that any unlicensed day care is inadequate day care. That's not so at all. In fact, many parents in the province choose the unlicensed day care. They prefer that as their first choice for having their children looked after, because unlicensed day care predominantly provides care for one or two children and is often close to the home. It may be done by a family member, a friend or relative — someone that the mother knows.

There's a lot to be said for unlicensed day care. To suggest that everyone has to be licensed, employing somebody from the public sector in order to administer it, is not right at all. That may be the choice that the members opposite would like to go with, but certainly it's not the way we think we need to go. That's not the way a great many of the parents in British Columbia feel they want to go, either.

MS. MARZARI: It's interesting, for a government that's prepared to spend $30 million on a racetrack for perhaps I percent of the population, that they're not prepared to see the need for a comprehensive child care system which affects 50 percent of the population — that is, working mothers. In fact, it affects the 62 percent of working mothers with preschool-age children and the 75 percent with school-age children. I find it difficult that any level of government would find that 3 percent or maybe I percent of the population would get subsidies for yacht clubs by not collecting taxes on foreshore leases or on parkland being handed over — which is happening in my neighbourhood at great expense to the community and the taxpayer — and not spend at least the equivalent dollars on child care centres in that same neighbourhood, when there are so many more people directly involved and needing that service.

The minister says that we don't have to provide a licensed space for every single kid that seems to need it. We require a licence for every car that drives on the road. We require that everyone follows certain rules and procedures when they get involved with government. We require licences for all kinds of activities, from getting married to buying a dog. Yet when it comes to child care and the provision of a service, we decide that.... The minister said it: for many parents it's a first choice. I'd suggest to the minister that it's an only choice for most parents.

If you just reread the statistics I've put forward today, the number of licensed spaces compared to the number of spaces that are required is barely one in ten — not even one in 20. It's absolutely true. I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of mail from parents — mothers basically — who run unlicensed spaces, telling me that they run a quality service. And they do. There is no doubt that there are a number of women in our community who break their backs for kids in their community, minding them and taking care of them — the neighbourhood moms. They're terrific. But why aren't they being supported? Why aren't they being

[ Page 13088 ]

given the little assistance that they might need to upgrade their toys? Why aren't they being inspected to make sure that stuff that they don't even know about is being properly looked at — a faulty furnace, an area that might need extra ventilation.

There are all kinds of things that can be done by government — not with a massive amount of money — that can really upgrade and assist in the development of quality standards of care for 300,000 kids. That's what we're talking about here — 300,000 children.

I have to come back to my original point. Our province is seriously behind the rest of this country in recognizing the nature and the magnitude of what we're looking at here. Perhaps because our province has such a large problem on its hands that it wants to step back from it and not understand that it is huge, you still have the idea that we've got a small problem here and that you can deal with it with band-aid solutions.

The fact that the women's ministry has come onto the scene has given us some temporary respite. The Women's Programs minister has set up a task force that has produced one of the better documents in this country on child care and child care needs. This document really is a blueprint for what child care could be in this province. It was put together by people who know their business — experts here in B.C. who know what to do.

The city of Vancouver has hired some of these experts to develop a comprehensive, half-decent child care program that recognizes the real needs of people in Vancouver. They're not hiding from the facts They're laying it right out and saying this is what the nature of our problem is, and this is what we have to do about it — with a blueprint.

You have a blueprint. The Women's Programs ministry has provided you with one. The question is: what's the minister going to do with the blueprint that's been provided? Has the minister set up a special committee to find out how his ministry can contribute to the development — administratively and financially — of a comprehensive child care program?

Let me break that question down. Has the minister started to contemplate the provision of child care monthly operating funds to see centres through their budget crises? Has the minister decided to invest more in the capital construction of new child care centres?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer to the last one is, I believe, no. We provide a lot of assistance to day cares. I sign letters, and very often cheques are sent to assist day cares to renovate their facility or to buy furnishings or different things that they may require to make the facility better and more serviceable. We're always pleased to help, and we make a donation to them for that purpose.

The situation that the member opposite talks about is a philosophical approach. The member asks why the government wouldn't do such nice things as helping somebody fix their furnace and check their ventilation system. I suppose that government could send somebody in to check somebody's furnace and fix their ventilation system and sweep their floor and vacuum their rugs, too. The government could take over everybody's lives. I suppose that's what the members opposite would have government do.

It's our belief that government should only be involved where it needs to be involved; and when government is involved, it should be involved as unobtrusively as possible in people's lives. The biggest luxury that we could give to the citizens of this province is the opportunity for them to choose how they will spend their own money, rather than thinking that we should take the money from them and spend it on our behalf because we know how to spend it better than they do. The fact is that the people would welcome the opportunity to make their own choices.

People do not have to have government beside them holding their hand all the way through life in order for them to make it through and be able to develop a good, wholesome society. They can do that very well without government, because on a prorated basis, government is really no smarter than the rest of the population. The rest of the population has the facilities and the needs. They understand the community, they understand the problem and they can take care of it better. So it's best we leave some things for the communities themselves to do.

Where we need to help, we will help. But we will not intrude to the point of saying that we know we are the only ones who can do this and that we know what your needs are, whether or not you agree with it. "If you're a mother who likes to have your child in an unlicensed day care, that might be all right in your view. But we, big government, know better than that. It should be in a licensed facility, because people in licensed facilities have all the necessary experience, training, instructions and facilities. So that's where you're child has to go." I don't believe in that. I think government should stay out when they don't have to get involved in people's lives.

There is a need for more daycare spaces, and they'll be provided as time goes by. That's not only a responsibility of government, but government can perhaps help. We've had a task force, as you mentioned, and that task force is being reviewed. This ministry is participating in that review, along with all the other ministries involved. When that review is completed, action will be taken according to the decisions made following the review of that particular task force's recommendations.

There was $55 million allocated over a three-year period for that, and there's $12.1 million of that in the budget this year. So we are moving in that direction. But I don't believe that government is the only one that has a responsibility. It can belong to the employers, the communities and also to the parents. Let's not think that government should be the only one that knows how to do everything in society.

MS. MARZARI: That's strange — Lord of the Flies revisited. I'm sure that the minister has absolutely no trouble with seatbelts in cars. I'm sure he has no trouble with putting up traffic signals at corners — red lights, green lights. I'm sure he has no trouble with lifeguards at beaches. I'm sure he has no trouble with

[ Page 13089 ]

education systems and kids going to school between the ages of five and 16 or 18. I'm sure he has no difficulty with the medicare system. I'm sure the minister has no difficulty with any laws that we have right now which support the common wisdom of the people that have elected us to do our jobs. I'm sure that the minister would not undo any of the institutions that we have created for ourselves as citizens. That's what we're here for. This is an institution, just like a secondary school, a hospital or a local clinic. This place is an institution that's been put together by people like us to do the people's will.

I'm saying that the people's will happens to include the 75 percent of mothers in this province with school-age children that don't feel safe or right about how their kids are treated everyday. Their kids may be treated really great, but there is a huge percentage in this province who are not asking for seatbelts, an education system or another hospital. They're women, generally speaking — traditionally invisible — who are asking for safe, proper, adequate, licensed care for their children.

In doing so, they're asking for the choice. The minister said that he was all out to deny choice, and that this side of the House wants to drive children out of their houses and thrust them into child care centres. This side of the House is looking for a menu of services that are safe and licensed, that parents can feel secure that children can grow and develop in while their parents are working outside the home.

The minister can go into a rant, if he wants, about government invading the lives of people, but this so-called invasion is actually an expansion of choice and is no more of an invasion than a properly licensed car, a traffic light on a street, a school or a hospital. It's on the continuum of care, if you see what I mean — not a residual service we can treat with lottery grants, but a basic part of the new twentieth-century structure of a society that relies more than ever before on women in the formal workforce.

[3:30]

A remarkable thing.... I just wish the veil could be lifted from the eyes of the other side of this House so they could actually see the statistics and understand there are hundreds of thousands of women — parents with kids, many of them single — who don't feel right about what is happening and who feel that the system is not serving them.

I have a letter in front of me from a woman who has run the gauntlet and got through the bureaucracy to find some child care assistance. She writes a letter on April 15 of this year: "I send in a completed form once a month to the Ministry of Social Services, who assist myself with partial payment of my day care services." These are parents that are prepared to pay what they can afford and appreciate being topped up to what the child care actually costs. They're appreciative of this. It's not available to many of them, because the rates at which the subsidy kicks in are so limited. She says:

"As in any job, this person [who minds my child] has the right to be paid on time. Every month it becomes a concern as to when this payment will arrive. The lateness of these payments can and does cause emotional and financial stress, irritation and/or loss of day care services.

"I know that I am not a 'lone' individual with the major concern in reference to the day care payment issue. Whether it is licensed day care, in-home or out, these people's positions are of great responsibility and they have, once again, the right to be paid on time. "I personally fear the beginning of each month when I will have to start wondering what will happen this time."

I'm referring to parents who have managed to qualify for a small subsidy in order to hold their jobs and have their kids treated properly in licensed care. But what they are saying and what this mother is saying on behalf of her child care worker is: when is the government going to pay that subsidy? Does the government not realize that it is dealing with small businesses that actually rely on government input to stabilize their cash flow? What is the problem with payment?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, could I have the date of the letter?

MS. MARZARI: The letter is dated April 15 of this year.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Okay, Mr. Chairman. If the letter is dated April 15 of this year, I would appreciate a copy of it, and I would like to check it out. We did a major review of that whole process because that was a problem. If the ministry is going to pay a subsidy, then people should be able to depend on the subsidy being there on the due date. I would like a copy of that letter, because I would like to check it out. I don't know how many thousands of these we process each month, but there is a lot of them. But that's not an excuse. They should all be done properly. I would like to look at it.

MS. MARZARI: I will ensure that the minister gets a copy of this letter today.

The minister has said he doesn't intend to put anything more into the capital costs of building new child care centres. He will leave that for another year to the lotteries, which might kick out $10,000 grants to the occasional centre as it attempts to build.

My question is not on capital. My next question has to do with the financial accountability of the existing system that the MSS&H has developed to ensure that the right people get the right treatment, and that money is not being wasted in the provision of child care. I find this a rather ironic position to be in, because the auditor-general, in his most recent 1991 report, speaks to the systems that the MSS&H uses to ensure that there's accountability both in the eligibility requirements of parents applying for subsidy and in terms of child care homes — licensed and unlicensed, I would imagine — that are claiming a subsidy. You have two separate routines here. The financial assistance worker has the responsibility of determining the eligibility and the entitlement of the parent.

The auditor-general claims that "few guidelines have been provided as to the nature and extent of the monitoring procedures to be carried out, and our audit

[ Page 13090 ]

tests revealed a high rate of small errors in the calculation of eligible income, exempt income level and subsidy payable." The auditor-general goes on: "We therefore recommended that the ministry strengthen its general control environment, particularly in district offices, by improving supervisory, review and monitoring procedures for approved applications."

As I said, I find this rather ironic, because at the very moment the auditor-general is speaking to the 168 district offices of MSS&H as they go in and interview parents as to their eligibility for child care subsidy.... I note in the back of my mind that three pages earlier in his report the auditor-general is talking about the relative paucity of forestry supervisors out there collecting revenues from our forestry resource. We might be blowing hundreds of millions of dollars a year by not collecting on the timber cut in our province. I would suggest that the magnitude is probably in the order of a hundred million to one in terms of the dollars we waste by not collecting them on the forestry side and the dollars we check to the nickel and dime on the MSSH side in determining eligibility of a mother for a subsidy.

I would ask the minister what he has done to ensure these reviews — the monitoring and evaluations — are tightened up. I ask not because I'm a grinch, but because I believe that if you have standards and rules, you live by them. If you don't live by them, a kind of cancer creeps into your own system: exemptions here, sloppiness there, and the system suffers. More importantly, I believe you live by your rules because clients and citizens suffer in the last analysis if you don't. From my knowledge of child care parents and of human beings, people will take a lot in terms of regulation, but they detest unfairness in the application of rules. I do, and everybody I know does. Parents receiving a subsidy for day care, for example, are very aware of what their neighbour is or is not receiving There is always that comparison between parents who may or may not be on the eligibility list. Rules have to be consistent and applied fairly, because people can live with a great deal.... Also, it's important for everybody to be aware of what those rules are and that they're not being bent by some whimsical procedure. It doesn't give us a true picture of what the real situation is. If people know what rules to play by, they know what they have to fight. And when they know what they have to fight or can get angry about, then maybe we can get some real change.

So I ask this question not because I want to see thousands of financial assistance workers going over every nickel and dime's worth of eligibility — I'd rather see the financial assistance workers out in the forests cruising timber and making sure stumpage comes in, quite frankly — but because I want to make sure that this ministry is properly supervising and monitoring its own rules to ensure that they are being fairly and consistently applied.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with the situation in the Ministry of Forests and the control that takes place there. Maybe it's a nice break for me to get up and talk about forestry for a little while. I don't know, but I think the auditor-general was saying that there's a possibility that there could be some missed revenue — that's not to say there is, but there could be. I guess the one way of ensuring that there isn't any lost revenue is to make sure so many people are monitoring it so carefully that it becomes mathematically impossible to have any slip-ups in the system. I have to tell you that forestry — I want to talk about that for a little bit; we're not on my estimates anyway — has a pretty good system. I was in it for a long time, and I think every single piece of wood was monitored pretty carefully from what I saw over a number of years. I'd be surprised if there's any amount missing, but possibly in some places there is, because it's a big industry.

Getting back to our own ministry, I agree with the member that it's very important that the rules we apply be precisely the same for all parties, and it isn't fair if one person providing a service gets more than another one providing the same service. So we have to have careful rules, and we're very aware of that. We try to maintain a system that has as little discretionary power in it as possible, because discretionary power makes for variances, and variances can make for injustices and inequality between various groups.

A good example of that is in the foster home care, where foster homes provide different levels of service to different people — one level being more intense than another. We're looking at ways of dealing with that situation to make a very fair system so that all are treated exactly the same. That's something we will be talking about in the future. But what we have done within our ministry on the cases that the member opposite talked about is have training sessions for the staff to advise them of the auditor-general's findings and of what needs to be done in order to deal with that issue. The supervisors responsible for the day care program have also had training to advise them on the proper entitlement and how to make sure that the rules are applied equally and fairly in all cases.

So I guess the answer to the question is that we have done the same as any private business would do if they felt they were having a bit of a problem with their control system: have training sessions with the staff responsible in order to improve and tighten up the system.

MR. ROSE: I don't know just how much I should go into this, because I intend to submit this letter later on to the ministry, and I've found in the past that when I have done things like that, they've been most helpful.

I think it's important, when we talk about discretion.... This person claims that she was put through the wringer in an attempt to get a few months of social assistance after she became a single parent and separated. It's a question that I don't think is common, and I'm not making a charge about the people who work in the ministry; nevertheless I don't think it should happen. The woman says later on that she didn't want to sound like a whiner. Essentially the story is that she was separated, and then she took a first aid course and was able to get a job. But apparently there was a lot of trouble filling out eligibility assessments and getting

[ Page 13091 ]

her cheques, and she felt that she was put through the wringer.

[3:45]

Again, I think you have to be conscious in the ministry of the fact that there may be some people who take advantage of it, but in your efforts to maintain integrity in the system, to some people who perhaps are embarrassed by asking for assistance in the first place, it comes out as hounding or almost harassment. I think we have to temper these matters when we're dealing with this. A worker tells her that she's going to be able to get $200 to send her children for a one-week summer camp, and then she's told a couple of days later that there's no opportunity for that, because it's run out; the GAIN file was closed. Then her medical coverage was cancelled as of June 30, and the day care subsidy forms again — and another cutback. Probably to some of us these things are not very important, but if you're on the tightrope of insufficient funds and coping with a broken marriage and children who can't understand why they can no longer get things, I imagine you could get pretty emotionally uptight about it.

I don't want to express a lot of outrage, because I don't think it is called for here, especially when I'm going to seek some discretion on the part of the ministry and ask them to review the file. But I did want to read part of her letter.

She says: "In closing I would like to state my finances exceed my income." Well, that's a bad shake. It sounds like the federal government. "As I previously mentioned, I don't want a constant handout from the government. I have been with my present employer now for six months and have a two-year contract."

But it's far from easy. I'm paraphrasing here. She says she believes that as a taxpayer she's paying into this fund, and therefore she is entitled to some of it. She's talking about the kids in summer camp and also the cutback on her medical coverage. She asked me to intervene, and if any further backup paperwork is necessary, she will supply it.

Anyway, I don't know how often that story is replicated. I will say that I have had occasions in the past to call upon the ministry for explanations and review. Usually I have been very impressed by the way in which the deputy and others I've been in contact with have dealt with these matters when they are brought to their attention. At the same time, if I can ask the question: how does the ministry go about making certain that they're giving out the taxpayers' money — and this has to be done very carefully.... But on the other hand, how does the ministry make certain that people are not hounded or harassed when they are in need and asking for what is legitimately theirs — people who want to work and are not just sandbagging it?

It's a tough question, and I don't expect a particularly good answer, because I'm not sure I could answer it myself. I would like to hear the minister's remarks on this and also his agreement that he will have his deputy look into this matter as soon as possible so that I can provide my constituent with an answer.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We will certainly look into the matter. If we could just ask for a copy of the letter, we will check that out.

The member asked the question: how do we make sure that the rules are applied fairly, and that someone is not harassed but is given what they are entitled to? It's interesting, because we do get the odd letter like that. Sometimes we get them because a social worker may have made a mistake, and the person really did not get everything they were entitled to. That has happened, and we correct that if it's brought to our attention.

You have to appreciate that we have a lot of people working out there in the field, and perhaps every particular case is not going to be handled perfectly, so that will happen.

The other thing that happens is that people on social assistance very often think they should be entitled to more than they get. I can understand the feeling, because it is difficult to get by — I appreciate that — and they maybe feel that what they get isn't adequate, and that they should get a little more. That feeling really shows up when they become employed and get some income. We allow families to keep the first $100 they make, and then up to a certain limit we allow them to keep 25 percent of what they earn after that. But the rest of it we deduct. People look at that and think: "Gee, I should be able to keep all I earn."

The reality of it is that we have another group of people out there who have never come to government and asked for any help; they're out there on their own working, and they too perhaps don't have very high incomes. We have to make sure that we don't provide more benefits to one than the other; otherwise we'd have to provide a subsidy for everybody on social assistance. Trying to deal with that is a problem. People feel that they're treated unfairly because we don't allow them to keep everything that they earn. We have a program, and again we go back to fairness. We try to make sure that everyone receives the same amount of benefit. Whether they are unhappy about that or not isn't really something we can change, because we're bound by the rules to do it.

I have to tell you my personal view on this question of being hounded in order to get social assistance. My personal view — and I haven't even talked to the deputy about this, so he'll be quite surprised — is that if I had my choice, in a perfect situation, I would make it very easy for somebody to get social assistance. I would make that very easy, because people come sometimes at night, in an emergency situation, they need help and they need it now. They might not even be in very good condition emotionally to deal with a lot of problems and red tape.

I would make it easy. What I would do is have a protective mechanism. I would have it that people tell us their situation, and they would sign and agree that that's what their situation was. If they were caught violating that, I would come down very hard on the offenders. People who have used the social service system are not taking away from government. It's not hurting me as the minister or the people who work in my ministry. The people they are hurting are the others

[ Page 13092 ]

who are in need. When you abuse the social service system, you abuse the people who are in need of social assistance. I would come down very hard on that, because it's a system that's provided to meet emergency needs of people.

MR. ROSE: My colleague asked me if he'd come down heavy on Fletcher Challenge too if they were creaming off the system. There might be a double standard.

I think what concerns people a lot is that they feel that the workers regard everyone with some sort of cynicism or even suspicion. I think that sometimes it's like a schoolteacher who thinks that every child in the class is capable of breaking the rules. On the one hand, they get pilloried if they give in to cheaters; on the other hand, they could be too tough sometimes on people who've just come for assistance.

On the matter of wages and allowing them to earn, we do that as a program in other ministries. We have subsidized wages for people who hire people. That's not unknown in government. If you employ a certain group of people, you can get subsidized wages.

On the minister's suggestion that he would get them to sign a declaration, that sounds like what they used to have in UIC. Maybe they still do. There used to be great problems in dealing with UIC because there was cynicism on the part of some of the UIC officers, who thought that everybody really was a cheater. What they would do was get them in to sign a declaration, usually written by somebody else, and then they'd be cut off two weeks later because they'd agreed to something — they'd condemned themselves out of their own mouth. If you ever institute a system like that, if you should have that opportunity anytime in the future, then perhaps you'd be on guard about that one. The inspectors would smuggle certain phrases into these statements, and we had a lot of trouble with those things, going back 10 and 15 years. Thank you for your response, and I'll see that you get the letter.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to go back and talk a little about housing.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll get to that. To the member over there, I heard your little speech about home-ownership last night — I think it was last night. Mr. Chairman, the record is that this government has killed home-ownership in the province of British Columbia, and I'm going to do a little talking about that this afternoon.

I continue to hear deathbed repentance on the part of this government and various ministers about all the wonderful things they're going to do now on the eve of an election. It's just amazing what this government is in favour of now on the eve of an election. After all the various things they've killed or shot down, the people they've fired, it's just incredible that we have this deathbed repentance by a discredited government on the eve of an election. But I think the people of the province are sophisticated enough to see through a government that will promise anything, say anything and do anything in an attempt to get elected again.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the home-ownership question. To back up a little, our side of the House, in terms of our policy and our announcements on housing programs and policies, has been talking about home-ownership, laying out the groundwork for a starter home program — how we can help first-time homebuyers. We've been asking this government to consider many of those programs, and there was deafening silence on the other side. I can recall this minister and previous ministers articulating our starter home program, better second mortgages, cancellation of property purchase tax for the first-time homebuyer, and a number of other policies we suggested, and there was ridicule from the other side. "Oh, we can't do those things." Now suddenly, in desperation, just a few weeks or maybe days away from an election, they believe in all those things that some year ago or six or nine months ago they were laughing at.

Let me just go over the record, Mr. Chairman, in terms of home-ownership. This government says it suddenly believes in home-ownership again. I recall that in this province we used to have a $2,500 grant for the first-time homebuyer.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could control the member over there who can't chew and walk at the same time. I don't know what he's doing today, but perhaps a little control from the other side. I know we're talking about home-ownership and that's offensive to this government, but this side of the House believes in putting young people in their homes. We believe in giving opportunities. I want to remind that member from the Nelson area.... I forget the name of your riding — the one that got all the lottery grants, 23 lottery grants in an amazing period of time; a little bit of back-of-the-truck lottery grants for that member over there. He was very good at that, the minister who was in charge of lotteries.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman, do you remember the $2,500 grant that was given to first-time homebuyers — young British Columbians? But guess what? Who cancelled that program? This government. That young couple with maybe one or two children, when they were given the opportunity to buy their first home, the provincial government said: "We'll give you a little help." Who cancelled that important home-ownership item? Social Credit.

Where is that member from Langley who was talking last night about Social Credit's belief in homeownership? You cancelled the program that helped young people. There was a $1,000 first-home grant for new or older homes for the first-time buyer. Who cancelled that? Social Credit.

We used to have a second-mortgage program for the first-time homebuyer in British Columbia — a real second-mortgage program, not the modified one today, which is basically just a loan guarantee. When that young British Columbian goes to buy that first home

[ Page 13093 ]

and can't quite squeeze the little extra he or she needs out of the bank — and don't get me going on the banks — the government said: "We'll give you a hand on the second mortgage." Who cancelled that real second mortgage program? Social Credit. Today it's a modified second mortgage, just a loan guarantee of about $12,000 run by the private sector — back to the private sector.

Do you remember who brought in the property purchase tax? Who refuses to cancel that for the first-time homebuyer? We have consistently said the first-time buyer — the young British Columbian who wishes to enter the market for that dream of ownership — shouldn't have to pay the property purchase tax of $2,000 or $3,000. But they refuse to cancel....

Mr. Chairman, I have had news today that the interim Premier, who was not speaking as the Premier yesterday — she said, "I'm speaking as a leadership candidate" — said that she believes it should now be cancelled for the first-time homebuyer. So the interim Premier, as a candidate, was attacking her own government. That's an interesting scenario, but only in British Columbia would we have that happen. She says that her government is doing the wrong thing putting property purchase tax on the first-time buyer, and she wants to cancel it. But when you ask her in this House, that same interim Premier says: "Oh no, my government won't do that." What a schizophrenic government we have in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, we should cancel the property purchase tax for the first-time homebuyer. That's our policy. That would help home-ownership in British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This government may talk about home-ownership, but I see no policies about it, while this side of the House has developed policies and programs.

The minister laughs. The minister, I understand, is about to announce his leadership intentions. Save your $9,000, Mr. Minister. It's a sinking party. Don't join the race. That's my advice to you, but I'm sure you won't necessarily listen to it.

We have a program; we've announced it. We've been front and centre with our program. We have also announced some strategies for home-ownership. They are in various forms. One of the major ones is the starter home program.

We've had debates and dialogue with the contractors and the private developers on how we could start a no-frills starter home program, trying to help those young British Columbians into their first home. Those discussions have gone very well. We've announced all sorts of other innovations to encourage home-ownership in the province of British Columbia.

This government clearly has been reading some of the innovative things we've been saying should happen in the province of British Columbia, which six months ago they were ridiculing. Now they believe them. Now they want the people of the province of British Columbia to say: "We've changed, and we believe in those home-ownership ideas that you've been talking about, and we're going to bring them in."

We even have an interim Premier, who was speaking not as the interim Premier but as a candidate for Premier, saying that she wants to cancel property purchase tax. They're a very schizophrenic bunch over there.

The record on home-ownership is not there. They haven't done anything — very little for home-ownership. At least they could announce cancellation of the property purchase tax for the first-time buyer. Maybe they could do that.

I forgot a very important point, and the Chairman reminded me. I recall vividly when Peter Thomas was appointed to head up the B.C. Housing Management Commission. We went on a hunt for Peter Thomas yesterday, you'll recall. We were trying to find out where he's hiding these days. For those who don't recall the debate yesterday, I basically was suggesting that Mr. Thomas can't be found in terms of the leadership of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. We've had nothing in terms of ideas and suggestions or policy to lead British Columbia out of this awful housing crisis this government has got us into.

I recall when Mr. Thomas was appointed. I had a very brief discussion on the telephone with him; he was all excited about all the wonderful things he was going to do for the people of the province of British Columbia. He said: "Hon. member from Victoria...."

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I can't use.... You know the rules, Mr. Member.

He said to me: "What sort of things should we be working on?" I said: "Well, we're very interested in home-ownership concepts; how we can encourage home-ownership and what policies we can put in place." And he said: "What a great idea! We'll work on that. We'll come up with some innovations and policies." I gave him a few ideas in the atmosphere of trying to encourage home-ownership in an apolitical, non-partisan way.

Well, I haven't heard from Mr. Thomas since. I haven't heard a word. Where has he been? There's been nothing from Mr. Thomas on home-ownership; nothing at all. No policies, no strategies. It's been a total disaster in terms of the leadership of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I'm not talking about staff; I'm talking about the leadership, the judgment of this government in appointing Mr. Thomas. I asked him for some leadership on home-ownership; it hasn't happened. But now, as we get close to an election, they're discovering home-ownership. They're reborn in terms of home ownership.

We all know what Mr. Thomas is really up to. I found another news clipping on this. This is the gentleman that your government appointed. I'm sorry that you have to take responsibility for this today. Instead of developing home-ownership programs in this province and advising the government what to do on cancelling property purchase tax for homeowners, on a starter home program, better second mortgages or

[ Page 13094 ]

renovation grants for older homes — those sorts of things — Peter Thomas has gone to Dallas, Texas, and moved most of his British Columbia operation south. He says: "We want to be the company people can invest in if they want to participate in the so-called flip. It could be a three- or four-year flip, but it could be a two-month flip as well." He said he prefers the U.S. attitude about real estate development. He said: "Quality apartment buildings in Dallas are close to full occupancy, so prices must rise."

This is the man that this government asked to develop policy on affordable home-ownership for young, struggling British Columbian families. He said: "I'll do that. We believe in that." What did he do, as the leader of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, the government's so-called answer to housing? He took off and abandoned British Columbia. Instead of developing home-ownership programs here, he's flipping them south of the line. He's left British Columbia high and dry.

That's the kind of leadership this government represents. That's the kind of thing they want to do on home-ownership. I heard this stuff last night: "But what are you going to do about home-ownership?" It's all flimflam, smoke and mirrors, and it's not to be believed, because the guy who was supposed to be doing it is not doing it. He's doing the exact opposite in terms of making home-ownership affordable in this province. He's in Texas flipping properties. "We are the specialists in flipping properties — a quick resale." This is the man who was supposed to develop programs for affordable home-ownership and on how to use Crown land in an effective way for young British Columbians to meet that dream.

What a scandal, Mr. Chairman. This minister sits over there and, by his silence, defends this kind of approach to home-ownership. I hear the member from Langley...

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, we are just getting into some material that will probably be momentous in terms of the life of this parliament. I would like to request that my hon. colleague continue.

MR. BLENCOE: The government may say I am revisiting an issue I sort of touched on yesterday. I've had longer to think about it.

It really is quite symbolic that the arm of government that's supposed to be leading the way in the province for developing housing programs and planning, policy and home-ownership.... Last night the member for Langley got up and talked about the wonderful things they want to do in home-ownership. I wonder if that member actually knew that the man responsible for doing that is south of the line in Texas specializing in flipping? I wonder if he knows that he's not in British Columbia anymore doing any business or helping British Columbians.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're repeating yourself.

MR. BLENCOE: I think it bears repeating, Mr. Member, because I think it's an absolute scandal, quite frankly. I think the people of British Columbia deserve better. This government goes on television and spends millions of dollars saying that they're serious about housing. The man who is supposed to be showing leadership in developing the programs has abandoned British Columbia and gone to Dallas to be the specialist in flipping.

[4:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, standing order 41 prohibits tedious and repetitious debate. This member is continually going on and on about Mr. Thomas visiting people that Bob Rae drove out of Ontario, and I object to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member is well aware of the requirement for....

MR. BLENCOE: I ask the minister: are you prepared to continue to allow Mr. Thomas to be the leader of the B.C. Housing Management Commission?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order. I just want to put on the record that the person this member is attacking is someone who volunteers his time at no charge to the people of British Columbia. As the chairman of the B.C. Housing Management Commission he is charged with pulling a committee together of very progressive people in the community, people who are entrepreneurs and free enterprisers in their own right. Quite frankly, the people of British Columbia are very thankful for the time and effort that the Peter Thomases of the world and others put into this commission at no remuneration for themselves. They want to give of their time to improve the situation in British Columbia.

For the member's benefit, it doesn't mean they are expected to work full-time. We sincerely expect them to devote most of their time to what they do for a living, whether that happens to be real estate or whatever. We do appreciate the time that these people spend trying to better the lot of the people in British Columbia. None of them would appreciate this kind of personal attack, as our minister said yesterday, when they aren't here to defend themselves — Mr. Thomas and others. I want to put on the record that they devote a lot of their own personal time, energy and thought to making this a better province in which to, live. They do their best to give something back to the community from which they've earned a good living.

I want to add one more point to the debate that when the opposition says that they don't have adequate time to debate these estimates, we're hearing the exact same arguments put forward by that member as yesterday. You could play a tape of yesterday's debate in here, and it's almost verbatim what the member has said today It shoots down any argument they have of not having adequate debate.

MR. PETERSON: Listening to the member opposite's — the second member for Victoria's — debate

[ Page 13095 ]

when it comes to housing. I will give you my version of the NDP's housing policy. Let me tell you how they provide housing for people. It's simple. We have the experience of Ontario. They bring in a huge deficit. They destroy business. They destroy the economy. Do you know what happens then? Everybody leaves the province, and there are all kinds of vacancies and real estate values plummet. That's their solution to the problem. Let's face facts.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I appreciate the comments from the member for Langley, but we have to be fair to the second member for Victoria. He has made an important statement in this House: he has stood up and talked in favour of private home-ownership. Let's give him credit; he's come a long way. It wasn't a long time ago that his colleagues were denying the right to own private property in British Columbia. Now. he wants the people to have homes. You're getting there, Mr. Member. It will take a while, but you're on the right track. Keep it up.

MR. BLENCOE: To the minister, I'm sorry I won't be at your convention and can't vote for you, but it was nice of you to say those things for me. Thank you, but I can't vote for you. You're the wrong party, and you'll be over here very soon.

I have to respond to the House Leader, because I know he was the minister at the time who appointed Mr. Thomas. We've had at least two years of Mr. Thomas's leadership. When he was appointed, I was supportive. I talked to the man and offered our help. I offered to meet. We had a good discussion — once. The minister knows that it might have been fully expected for us to say negative things about Mr. Thomas being appointed. We gave the benefit of the doubt; we gave him the opportunity. All I can say is that the man hasn't delivered. We haven't got the programs. We haven't got home-ownership; we've got a crisis. And he promised that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: On a very serious note, I have staff here and other staff waiting in the building to do estimates for the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. If the members opposite are not interested in debating the estimates of this ministry, then I'll excuse my staff and they can go home and I can go back to my office and do work. I have a lot of things there that need attention. Either get with the estimates or else let's adjourn them and go on to something else. You're not debating the estimates of the ministry, sir.

MR. BLENCOE: With respect to the minister, we're talking about your office, about your responsibility and about how you deliver housing. Much of the housing programs you've funnelled off to the B.C. Housing Management Commission, and I'm making the point that the leader of that is at best part-part-time in terms of developing programs.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, the House Leader is getting a little owly — a little red around the gills. Take it easy. We know you want to cut and run. We know you want to have closure. We know you want another $10 billion in your back pocket so you don't have to talk to the people of the province of British Columbia. We know what that's all about. We know that's why you're owly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can get back to the estimates. Vote 52, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: We'll do our business. If we were here another couple of months we might get the work done, but they're going to cut and run.

Some time ago the minister talked about cooperation with local government and municipalities. As the minister knows, calling for cooperation is a two-way street.

I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the excellent proposal put out by UBCM on provincial-municipal housing initiatives. It has got a lot of recommendations in it, and from what I can see the government has only responded to one of them: that is discrimination against families. I'm going to go over this in some depth, but I'm wondering if the minister could indicate if he is aware of this, and what work has been done on this. I understand my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam has to leave and has a couple of questions to ask before he goes.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The document the member is referring to has been sent to this particular ministry. It may be with Municipal Affairs.

MR. CASHORE: I have two items I'd like to raise with the minister. The first is with reference to a letter I wrote to the minister on May 23 concerning the Mill Creek Village Estates housing cooperative. To give a brief history of the situation, we go back to the time that the Coquitlam city centre mall was being developed in the early 1980s. At that time there was a mobile-home park in which many of our citizens lived. When it turned out that the construction of the mall was going to result in the loss of security of tenure for those residents who were living there — a very appropriate kind of living for a great many people of our society — there was considerable consternation expressed in the media about what was going to happen to those people.

In 1982 the provi ncial government purchased some land in Coquitlam north of the Lougheed Highway in the southern part of Coquitlam. There was a great deal of publicity at the time, given that a lease arrangement was made whereby a company — I believe it was Taina — would operate a mobile-home park on a lease basis and make pads available to what became the tenants of Mill Creek Village.

This was a solution that seemed to be a good solution at the time, and a number of politicians in the area received a great deal of favourable publicity for having been able to put this plan together. It turned out that, in retrospect, what was not made public was that in this lease arrangement was a lease-to-purchase offer.

[ Page 13096 ]

The lease to purchase said that within a period of five years the lessee could purchase the property at a predetermined price of $1.8 million. You can imagine the consternation of these good British Columbian citizens who thought — by the publicity given to this through the government earlier — that they had security of tenure only to discover when they woke up one morning in August 1989 that the property was on the market for $8.9 million.

This caused a great deal of difficulty for these people, because they saw their hopes and dreams, which they thought had been resolved, possibly going out the window. It's really tragic they were put through this difficult situation. To their credit and showing that pioneering spirit that many of them have applied during their lifetime of working on behalf of British Columbia, they coalesced around forming a co-op. They came up with a plan where they would actually offer to purchase the land and operate it themselves as a co-op. They did receive some cooperation from the present owner of the property to enable them to do that.

As the minister knows, the federal government is responsible for housing co-ops. Normally if this co-op was to go ahead, the guarantee of the mortgage would come under federal policy. However, it has been pointed out that after several attempts by MP Ian Waddell and others to gain the support of the federal government in ensuring the mortgage to enable this tenants' co-op to get off the ground, their request to the federal government has been turned down. That in itself is very tragic.

The situation is this, Mr. Chairman. As I outlined in my letter of May 23, given the fact that this government was a key player in the process that led to these people genuinely believing that they would have security of tenure on that site and not knowing that there was a lease-to-purchase option, every effort should be made by this government to support these people in their effort to secure that property.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

I want to ask the minister if he has reviewed my letter and if he could update the House with regard to any steps that he may have taken up to this time to protect the interests of the people who live at Mill Creek Village. In asking the minister to do that, I'm saying that in this case I believe the case can be made that this government has a moral responsibility, given its historic role in the circumstances that now find these people in this very difficult situation. I would ask the minister if he would respond to that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm familiar with Mill Creek Village. I visited it when the problem developed. I was Minister of Labour at the time. I met with the tenants and discussed the issue. There certainly was a concern about the loss of that as a mobile-home park. It's well located and is very convenient for the people who live there.

As I recall — and I'm going by memory — I think the municipality would have been required to provide a zoning change in order to allow anything to be developed on there other than a mobile-home park. The municipality, to their credit, stated that they would not entertain any zoning change of the property. I assume that's still the situation, but I'm not quite sure.

I'm told by my staff that the letter the member speaks of has just been received by the ministry, so it must have been a letter that was sent recently.

[4:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: May 23.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have no idea where that letter has been, because the assistant deputy minister for Housing has just become aware of it. We have not discussed it, nor has he made a recommendation on it as yet. We will look at the proposal. Does your letter outline a proposal for us as to how we might intervene or assist in this?

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to thank the minister for that answer. Id ask him if he would just make note, in his preparation to deal with my letter, that the residents of Mill Creek Village are not asking for any financial support whatsoever, other than a financial guarantee that would enable them to get over this technicality of securing a mortgage. We're dealing here with very responsible British Columbians who have served this province, who have paid their taxes and who are law-abiding citizens. They deserve the support of this government in view of the fact that this government and its predecessor have had a role in bringing them to the situation that they now find themselves in. If a request should come forward from the Mill Creek residents, I would encourage the minister to arrange to meet with them again at the earliest opportunity — given that estimates are going to be over pretty soon — and discuss this situation with them firsthand. If there's anything this government can do to help these people, it would be a very creative, compassionate and responsible act.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn now to another issue relating to my constituency. It has to do with the question of licensed family day care. I do know this topic has been canvassed to some extent, but in a situation in Coquitlam, Kathleen Kuryliw has waited over six months for a Ministry of Social Services and Housing inspector to come and inspect the day care she hopes to operate. Apparently, after her story had been reported in the local media, there was a call from the ministry saying that somebody would be along within a couple of days. The old thing about the squeaky wheel getting the grease is apparent in that case.

Kathleen Kuryliw's situation has shown that, whereas the support of the ministry can be very worthwhile in coming out and inspecting these facilities and being helpful to the people who are dealing with what is an enormous gap in the need for day care spaces, and given the fact that there's been a lot of comment from this government recently stating that it supports licensed family day care, it's a bit amazing that it would take that long to get an inspection when those places could be made available for people in

[ Page 13097 ]

Coquitlam who are desperately looking for appropriate day care.

Kathleen Kuryliw tells us that there are a lot of unlicensed day care spaces in Coquitlam. Unlicensed day care, as you know, doesn't have training requirements, such as CPR. Certainly we would want our children to be in the best available care when they are in those circumstances. Why aren't enough resources being allocated in the north Fraser communities so that Social Services can assess applicants for day care licensing within a reasonable period of time?

I want to get on the record some other aspects of this situation: the Smiles and Sunshine Family Day Care on Hammond Avenue in Coquitlam has been waiting eight months for an assessment; Oxford Child Development Centre in Port Coquitlam waited one year until finally getting their assessment; another person in Port Coquitlam has waited over six months and still has not received a visit. I should put on record that these are as of May 17 this year. Birchland Child Care Centre in Port Coquitlam received their assessment visit in February of this year after a one-year wait. What is your ministry considering doing to ensure that this roadblock is removed so that these people are able to have their work facilitated in a timely way and those spaces can be made available to the community?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know why it has taken so long in the Coquitlam area. I am concerned to hear that. I give the assurance that I will have the ministry review that immediately — not only in Coquitlam, but to see what kind of service is being provided in other communities, because I'm concerned that such should be the case. There is a need for day care, both licensed and unlicensed. We certainly do not want to be a roadblock in making them happen. We do what we can, and our purpose is to encourage them. Certainly it's not acceptable that they are being delayed because of waiting for an inspection.

I want to point out that the inspection provided by the Ministry of Social Services is a social inspection to deal with the qualifications of the people providing the care: their understanding of how to handle children, how to discipline children and so on. But the actual licensing is done by the Ministry of Health. I'll have that reviewed right away.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to go back to the document I referred to, a major document on housing initiatives by the UBCM. The minister said he hadn't seen it or heard anything about it. The document I have tells me it was sent to the former Municipal Affairs minister, who is now the Minister of Transportation; the former Minister of Housing; and the minister himself, when he was in charge of Consumer Services. It's a major piece of work by the UBCM on provincial-municipal housing initiatives. I can't believe the government or the staff have not seen it.

It's has 18 very good, solid housing recommendations, one of which you have acted upon — about family discrimination. Maybe the minister does remember now, and maybe the staff.... It's called "Provincial-Municipal Housing Meeting — Proposed Initiatives, " put out by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, dated March 29, 1990. It's been around a long time. It was circulated widely. I was hoping to go through some of the issues here, because I would like to know what staff have been doing to work on some of these recommendations. I'd like to know if the B.C. Housing Management Commission has reviewed this document and if there are any recommendations from it.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think I do recall the document, Mr. Chairman. I was Minister of Labour and Consumer Services at the time and had met with the municipalities about housing issues. I remember there was a document. It was a good document containing a number of suggestions. Certainly you can ask us about the various issues, but I don't have the document here, and my staff are not familiar with it. I was not minister of this ministry at that time.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't know if the staff can answer it. I just assumed, because it came from the UBCM and was probably the housing recommendations of 1990, that you would be able to tell me what action has been taken so far, what implementation there has been or what administrative measures have been taken to consider it. I gather there's nothing from the briefing, or anything from staff, that would indicate that any of the work has been done. For instance, has Peter Stobie at the B.C. Housing Management Commission reviewed this document? It is a major document from the UBCM.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Just because we don't have a copy of the document here doesn't mean that people at B.C. Housing Management may not have reviewed it and be very familiar with it. But we don't have it here, and the deputy responsible for housing is not familiar with it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is very surprising, because I was hoping to enter into a discussion with the minister and get advice from his staff on where they're at and let the minister know that this brief.... I just think it would be automatic for a government that's serious about housing to have at its fingertips its reaction to this very important document for housing in the province of British Columbia.

In a way it doesn't surprise me. The document is broken down into municipal land use, and there are nine serious recommendations there, then residential tenancy, shelter assistance, secondary suites and housing programs.

Under municipal land use, there is the bonus zoning; I was going to ask the minister questions about bonus zoning. I think he knows about bonus zoning. It would help meet rental housing needs by providing rental housing in exchange for increased density. Currently there is no legislation or provision for legislation to allow that to happen.

I was going to ask the minister, through his staff, what work was being done with other ministries to look at bonus zoning. I would assume that the B.C.

[ Page 13098 ]

Housing Management Commission — Peter Stobie and others — are on top of this. I hope so. There's the whole thing of rental zones. I don't know what work has been done on that by the ministry. This is all important planning stuff for housing in the province.

There is a whole section on rental housing contracts. This will be used in association with development approvals, where rental housing is provided in exchange for increased densities in order to secure such matters as number of rental units, rent levels or formula determining these.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I do recall seeing the document, and the items the member has listed all come under the purview of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They're the ones that deal with municipalities on zoning and changing of regulations pertaining to zoning. Those items certainly have nothing to do with Social Services and Housing.

MR. BLENCOE: This was the point I was making yesterday about long-term planning strategy. You can't split these kinds of issues into one ministry or specific.... One of the reasons we have the B.C. Housing Management Commission is that they can study these things in a unified approach. I hope somewhere along the line.... But we're not going to, because we're going to have closure. We're going to shut down this debate, and I'm not going to get the answers.

I would have liked to have had a report on the status of B.C. Housing Management, Mr. Stobie and others in terms of analyzing and making recommendations to government for action on these very important items that could help us to solve housing problems in the province. They talk about public hearing process problems, official planned housing requirements, building code liability and control of demolitions. They talk about prohibition of rental discrimination against families with children, which is the one area they did take action on.

There are some ideas here for housing programs: home ownership demonstration projects; government land for housing — some suggestions and policies; some social housing and provincial and municipal initiative suggestions. I find it very frustrating that clearly I cannot ask any specific questions, because there are no answers on the other side. Again, I have to go back to the minister: what has the B.C. Housing Management Commission been doing? I mean, this was a major document. I assume there was an answer. Was there an answer to the UBCM about this? Does anybody know?

[4:45]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know if there was an answer or not. If there was an answer to the document, it presumably would have been from the ministry it pertained to; that would have been Municipal Affairs. Virtually all of the issues you talked about, Mr. Member, would be under the purview of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The B.C. Housing Management Commission may well have discussed the items. Certainly some of the items, such as Crown land, have been repeatedly discussed and considered by Municipal Affairs.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. But first of all I think it's interesting to listen to the second member for Victoria talk about Peter Thomas of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, who has probably forgotten more about housing than that member will ever know, and has built a lot of houses and done great service to the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Some member over there said: "More service to himself." I would say that's not true. That's the trouble with you socialists. You don't understand people who donate their free time to society.

MR. BLENCOE: Peter gave you a call, I guess, eh?

MR. REYNOLDS: No, he hasn't given me a call, but I would defend Peter Thomas anytime.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Also Murray Pezim. You'd better be careful. He might not donate much money to your party this year. He usually gives you a little bit every year to help you along. When your friend Mr. Simpson phones him up for donations this year — through a lawyer's office so they can hide where it really comes from — he may not give as much. Nevertheless, those are great British Columbians you're knocking. They like to knock all of those great British Columbians, who have built this province.

Mr. Chairman, I really have a question for the minister. I want to ask the minister about the councils in this province: namely, the one in Victoria, which is a bunch of socialists. What have they done to help low-cost housing in this province? How many times have they rejected zoning from people who want to get zoning to build low-cost housing? Is that part of the problem the minister has in getting more adequate, low-cost housing? Are there any statistics about the number of councils, whether it's Vancouver or Victoria — the major cities — that keep on rejecting...? How many units are being held up in this province by people who want to develop them and help the people in the low-cost housing field?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member is accurate. One of the major hurdles in developing affordable housing in British Columbia comes from the difficulty in getting the zoning at the local level, getting the acceptance. That is a major problem. I have to tell the member that there are communities, though, that have changed their views and are doing a great deal towards providing social housing. We have a list of those communities that have now come on and that recognize their responsibility to work together with the province and the Ministry of Housing to develop the potential for housing for British Columbians.

[ Page 13099 ]

I think many municipalities have done this. A good example is the latest development in Vancouver, where the city of Vancouver is cooperating with the province. They are, for a demonstration project.... I've mentioned this once before, but everything else that's been talked about here has been mentioned at least once before, so I guess I can do it too. This particular project is one where the city is putting up the land. The province is putting up the required capital — $150,000 — to build a display home. It will be on display for about six months' time. It has a basement suite built into it that the people can rent out and that's sanctioned by the city of Vancouver. They can rent it out until such time as they have a family of their own and they require the space. It's easily converted then to be part of their living accommodation.

At the end of the six months, the house will be sold and the city will be paid for the land. We will be refunded for our investment in it, and other communities will have had an opportunity to see what this kind of a house looks like. It has many other features besides the one I mentioned. Hopefully it will be repeated in community after community, throughout the lower mainland in particular.

MR. REYNOLDS: I just have one more question, and I'll let the member for Victoria get back to his questioning. It was nice to hear the member state that at least I was accurate. It must have been a change for him to get an accurate question this afternoon — something that pertained to his ministry rather than Municipal Affairs.

The minister talked about housing and about Vancouver cooperating. Could he tell me whether the city of Victoria is cooperating in helping low-cost housing? I read in the paper not too long ago that they rejected one major plan that would have given a lot more low-cost housing units to the people in Victoria, who need it very badly because of the poor planning of the socialist council over the years here in Victoria. I know the member for Victoria, who has represented Victoria in the Legislature since 1983 and who has complained an awful lot, can't seem to convince his socialist friends on council to do anything about it. Could the minister bring us up to date as to where we stand?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member wants to know about the situation in the city of Victoria. We would like to review some of the applications that have gone through the city over a period of time. I must say that recently things have improved. Even in Victoria there has been an improvement. All is not lost. The B.C. Housing Management Commission's efforts to encourage municipal cooperation and involvement in social housing have met with some success in locations such as Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Coquitlam, Saanich and even now in Victoria, Langley and Richmond. It is improving. One of the things that's encouraging is that communities and municipal councils are finally realizing they have a stake in this. They have an interest and have to cooperate, because people have to have housing. We have to have housing that satisfies the needs of the public, and is not just what some planner would like to see built. It must be something that is serviceable and meets the needs particularly of the small family of, today. The majority of families are small families.

MR. REYNOLDS: Just one final thing. I would like to congratulate the minister for that information and also Peter Thomas from the B.C. Housing Management Commission for the great job they've done. Any minister or chairman who could convince the city of Victoria to start cooperating has to be doing a great job as a minister, because of all the socialist tradition in that city and all the badmouthing from the member for Victoria. I congratulate the minister for the great job he's doing.

MR. BLENCOE: We can always know that when the government is feeling a little bit.... They dig out the class act from West Vancouver-Howe Sound to come to this House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I think it's symbolic that the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound came in here and said: "Because of the things you've been saying, you won't get donations for campaigns." Well, I tell you this side of the House won't be bought by people like that. That's how this government has run this government: friends and insiders have run this government for the last five years.

If a person who said he was going to do the job isn't doing the job, we want to ask questions of the government. Why haven't they done the job on behalf of the province? We won't be affected by somebody giving us a campaign donation. That's how that member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound works. We know that his buddy Murray Pezim and he.... We all know the friends and insiders of this government and how they work. That's how they work. That's why the people of British Columbia will eliminate this government in the next election in the next few months. They will eliminate them in the next election because of that kind of statement, that kind of attitude to government in the province.

I want to get back to the Minister of Housing, and ask him to ask the B.C. Housing Management Commission to review this important document on the UBCM. It is an important piece of work in terms of housing policy in the province, and it needs to be looked at. I can't believe that we don't have recommendations about it, that administrative measures haven't been taken to consider it. If they have, they certainly haven't got the answers to tell me about that.

In one of his speeches earlier on in this session the minister talked about cooperation with local government, that they weren't doing the job for you. Here's the job they did for you last year. It would appear that that cooperation doesn't go both ways, and I would hope that we're going to see in the future, when the UBCM and local government make recommendations

[ Page 13100 ]

that are broad in perspective, that the ministry responsible for housing will be prepared to cooperate in the way the minister wants them to.

MR. MICHAEL: It's certainly interesting listening to the critic, the second member for Victoria, talk about campaign donations. I would ask that anyone interested in campaign donations and the number received look at the federal representative of the Victoria area, MP John Brewin. Look at how many donations he received in the last federal election from the Victoria constituency. I would suggest that it corresponds very closely to the precise number of trade unions that are registered in the greater Victoria area.

Mr. Chairman, first of all to the minister. I have to sincerely compliment the minister and his staff, and I'd like to pass on the thanks on behalf of my constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke for the tremendous cooperation we've had from your staff through some very difficult problems. I really have to thank you very much.

If we were to work more closely with all levels of government, we could indeed do a lot to solve a great many of the problems that we have within the province. I had the opportunity last night to watch the late-night news. I'm not sure whether the minister was watching or not. There was an example of a young man that had just moved from Ontario. We welcome people from Ontario; I think they should be treated somewhat fairly. He he looked on the TV as if he was about 20 or 22 years old. He was sitting in an armchair on the streets of Vancouver — I don't know how many members in the House were able to observe him last night — and he was counting the pedestrians as they walked down the street. He had just moved from Ontario the day before yesterday. He went to the city hall offices and asked for a job, and he was hired the next day to start Work at the rate of $10.70 an hour plus benefits. He remarked on TV that this wasn't particularly good training, but he was sure that he could doctor up his resumes for future job interviews to give this job some prestige so that it would look pretty good on paper. He was being interviewed by one of the TV reporters. I thought to myself, if this is an example of cooperation between the city of Vancouver, the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and other agencies of government, it's indeed a very poor example.

I would like to know how many people the minister has on social assistance right now in the greater Vancouver area — how many single-family parents, how many handicapped people — who are receiving benefits, thanks to the minister and the taxpayers in British Columbia, and who would be willing to sit in an armchair in downtown Vancouver and collect $10.70 per hour plus benefits — people who have resided in British Columbia for years and years and are raising their families here in British Columbia.

I'd like to know, Mr. Minister, if you've seen the program from last night. If you haven't, would you please have a review of it and perhaps take what I've said into consideration. If the minister would perhaps phone the mayor of the city of Vancouver and ask whether he condones that practice of hiring a physically fit person who has just arrived from Ontario — he lands in Vancouver and is working, through his own admission, the next morning. I don't think that's very good practice. I think we should be giving a little bit of preference, particularly when it's a government agency and a municipality that receives large numbers of dollars from the provincial government.... We should be working in cooperation with Crown corporations, agencies, all ministries, all municipalities so that if there are jobs available that require very little training and not a great deal of strength or energy... In the example on TV last night he was sitting in an armchair with a little counter counting the pedestrians as they walked down the street. I would ask if the minister would kindly have a look at this situation and give Mayor Campbell a call on that matter.

[5:00]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I didn't see the program last night; I was delayed here. I can understand the concern that the member expresses, because there are a number of people here looking for employment, and it would be nice for them to get that employment. I think, though, that we have to be a little bit compassionate in this whole matter, because, at least the way I see it, there may be an awful lot of people from Ontario looking for jobs, and we'll have to be involved in trying to rescue them too, because it doesn't look good over there.

MR. BARLEE: Usually the minister answers with some candour and some concern. He seldom reverts to the clichés; occasionally he lapses, as he did a moment ago, but usually his answers are fairly rational.

We have some concerns. I've listened quite carefully to the minister for some hours in the last few days of debate, and I haven't been generally disappointed. He's been fairly reasonable. But there are certain things that we have some problems with. One of them is in my riding, and I've tried to get the ultimate answer to it. In criminal injury awards, the ministry calls this unearned income. In other words, if a person has undergone assault and battery and receives a criminal injury award of, we'll say, $12,000, this is then taken off the GAIN income. That is unearned income. I would think that is earned income. He may have a broken leg and a broken arm and many other injuries involved. This is really society's way of saying we're sorry. I think it's an error; I think it's a way of sidestepping natural justice. This ministry says: "Well, we're sorry too, but we're going to take that money away from you." What is the minister's response to that? What are his thoughts concerning that policy, which I don't think is fair?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, there are a couple of things the member should know. First of all, there's an exemption for earned income. If someone is on social assistance and has additional income.... If it's a family, they're allowed to exempt the first $100, and then 25 percent of the amount over that, up to, of course, a limit. The reason for the exemption is to have an incentive for people to try and earn some additional income. I know we can have a philosophical argument

[ Page 13101 ]

about how much that difference should be, but we have it at $100 for families, $50 for single people receiving assistance — and then beyond that, 25 percent. On unearned income and other types of income classified as unearned.... We do not have an exemption for that. As a matter of fact, the Canada act governing the social service system prevents us from doing that; it wouldn't be permitted.

Despite that, philosophically, social assistance is to meet the basic needs of the family, so the social assistance allowance provided is calculated to provide for that basic need. It's not a pension, so it's not something you can build upon. But in the case of people working and earning additional income, we allow them the exemption as an encouragement to begin to seek extra income.

MR. BARLEE: I understand the minister's answer, but I don't think it is really adequate. I think that there's a philosophical difference. You call this unearned income. I think this is above and beyond the control of the individual involved. It could be a rape case, it could be assault and battery; it could be a number of different cases. I think this should be the exception recognized by the ministry. It is not recognized by the ministry. I don't think the answer was adequate. Is the minister in favour of this? Is the minister in favour of calling this unearned income?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I suppose we could debate whether or not it's in the right category — whether this is earned or unearned income. The member uses the argument that because the person perhaps went through stress and abuse to get this income, he or she has in fact earned it. What is considered earned or unearned income is something that is negotiated between the Ministry of Social Services and Canada, to establish what is exempt and what is not exempt. It is not just a matter of the province; it's a matter of negotiations between us and the federal government, to decide which category any given income should be in. The income you describe is clearly considered to be unearned. You can disagree with that, and I can understand your arguments for it, but that's where it sits. I'm not sure that we even have it within our power to change it if we decided we should.

MR. BARLEE: I thank the minister, but I wish he would pursue this further with his federal colleagues. I think it is fairly important. Basically, the rationale behind it is a lack of fair play in this particular piece of legislation.

I'd like to canvass something else. In my particular area we have about 55,000 people. My area — and I should impress this upon the minister — is an unusual area. About 28 percent to 30 percent of the people are over 65. The employment opportunities in my area are limited. The year-round unemployment figure is generally about 14 percent to 20 percent. When I'm talking about my area, I'm talking about from Rock Creek to Hedley, from Stimmerland through Penticton, Kaleden, Oliver, Osoyoos, Okanagan Falls and so on. Out of these 55,000 to 56,000 people, we have two rehabilitation officers — that's all. Those two individuals have 3,500 clients. In other words, there are 3,500 people depending upon their services. This is an area of extremely high unemployment, so that means that the workload of each of those officers is about 1,750 to 1,800 people. How can they possibly service their needs in this area?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I feel that I should stand and pursue the questions raised by the second member for Boundary-Similkameen a bit further. He suggests that someone who receives a $10,000 or $12,000 award from the courts should be allowed to continue on social assistance and that they shouldn't be affected at all by that kind of an award. Further to that, I wonder if he would also feel that if someone were to inherit $10,000, $12,000, $40,000 or $50,000....

MR. MILLER: Point of order. We have heard the shocking announcement today by the government House Leader that they intend to invoke closure and that from the government point of view, we have spent far too long on these estimates, and yet we find a cabinet minister standing up in these estimates asking questions of members on our side. This forum is for the opposition to quiz the minister on government policy, not for people at the cabinet table, who should know better, to ask questions of members on our side. I assure them that they'll have lots of time when they're in opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, hon. member. The estimates are for all members of the House, Would the member for South Peace River please continue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I wouldn't want to wait the ten or 15 years until we might be in opposition, so I will pursue these questions now, if I might.

The member suggests that a court award shouldn't affect someone on social assistance. I'm wondering, then, if they got an inheritance, sold some property or came into some money some other way, would that be treated in the same way? It makes you think now about the agenda. What would the member across the way recommend? What would he suggest?

We hear in Ontario that welfare payments are now being....

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to consider the rules. This government has moved closure. We're going to be closed down on these estimates, with no more debate on this issue. We have a cabinet minister who obviously can't get answers in the cabinet room — which shows what kind of state you're in — asking questions of the opposition. You've moved closure. Let us do our job. Stop protecting the ministry and let us get to the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, hon. member. There has been a relatively free flow of debate today, and I note that most of the time has been

[ Page 13102 ]

devoted to the opposition. Would the hon. member please continue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The member says I can't get the answers in cabinet. The fact of the matter is that those kinds of nonsensical things aren't raised in cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, I'm curious to know whether the members opposite would pursue....

MR. MILLER: Point of order. My sense of what the member for South Peace River has said so far is that he's posing a question to the member for Boundary Similkameen. I would say that's far beyond the rules of order with respect to these estimates. I understood that this forum is for us — and the minister, if he wants to — to ask questions of the Minister of Social Services and Housing, not to pose questions to members on this side. Am I correct in that assumption?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your comments, hon. member. It is part of the process of debate, and I would again ask the member for South Peace River to please continue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The question I would like to pose to the minister is how he would feel about pursuing the program in Ontario, as it has been outlined to us in the Globe and Mail recently, where the government there is on record as regularly approving payments of mortgages up to $200,000 or $300,000 for folks on welfare, with no opportunity at all for the Crown to recover that. The reason I rise is that the second member for Boundary-Similkameen raised this issue, found himself in an area that he didn't want to pursue any further and tried to skip off to the next subject. Seeing as the second member for Boundary Similkameen has raised the issue, I would like to pursue it a bit in this House. I think it's a matter that would be of interest to British Columbians. They would like to know what our position would be, and they may be interested in the position taken by the members opposite. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to take my place, allow the minister to respond and perhaps hear a bit more from the members opposite on their thoughts. It's a very interesting topic that we've gotten into. I would certainly be interested in hearing some socialist philosophy as it relates to this subject.

MR. BARLEE: I find it absolutely astounding that he calls the criminal injury awards nonsensical. The criminal injury awards were put in by your own government. I think the minister is quite aware of that Usually the minister who just spoke is fairly rational. I find that going far off the topic. I'm absolutely astonished by it.

[5:15]

However, we will canvass something else that I think is fairly important. In the south Okanagan, emergency housing is really at a premium. In fact, if my records are correct, there's very little emergency housing in the south Okanagan — that is, south of
Kelowna. Individuals are now being evicted. In our area there are a number of individuals who are able to take advantage of the motels in our regions for about eight or nine months of the year. I have a case in particular....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order; please, hon. members.

MR. BARLEE: I have a case in the Okanagan Falls area where a single father with three children is being evicted. He will be evicted by the end of this week. He has nowhere to go. He has been staying in a motel for about 14 months. This is not an isolated case. This is one of literally dozens, and it's increasing year by year. Does the minister have any answers for those problems that are facing people in the south Okanagan who are on restricted incomes and have really nowhere to go? He'll end up in a tent this summer; there's not much doubt about that at all.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The policy of the ministry, Mr. Chairman' is that people will not be abandoned. If this gentleman has young children, he should go to his Social Services office and discuss his situation, and they will find a place for him to live.

MR. BARLEE: Actually, he has gone to a Social Services office, and they said that since he has no housing, they have taken away his shelter allowance. This is the answer he got from his Social Services adviser. I really don't think that's good enough, and I don't think the minister thinks it's good enough. Why would that occur? Indeed, he will not have any housing by the end of this month, which is several days down the line. They then state to him that they're going to take away his housing allowance. This leaves him in a rather precarious situation.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think the member can appreciate that it's a little risky for me to start commenting on a situation when I don't know all of the details. I have seen situations before where we have perhaps taken the shelter allowance away because people were given money as a shelter allowance and then would choose not to use it for shelter, and they use it for something entirely different. That's unfair, because it was given specifically for shelter and they used it for something else, and it put their allowance all out of proportion to what other people would be receiving. We have to know the details of a situation like that.

MR. MILLER: The debate is certainly getting interesting in here, with the members of the cabinet wanting to rise and ask questions of their fellow ministers. Maybe it's indicative of the kind of disarray we see in this government – the fact that there appears to be absolutely no communication between cabinet ministers who sit around the same table. It's rather shocking, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 13103 ]

I want to deal with a couple of the issues that were raised, because I'm not satisfied with the answer that the minister gave to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke — a member of the Socred back bench. I was reminded, listening to some of the Socred speakers in this debate, of that famous quotation from the 1970s. I believe you'll find it in Colombo's Canadian Quotations — famous Canadian sayings. It's actually attributed to my predecessor, the former member for Prince Rupert, who remarked with some disgust about the ease with which members of the Social Credit government seemed to want to pick on people in our society who are generally least able to defend themselves.

There's a long history in that respect. We have the remarks of the former Premier, who took great delight in gaining, I suppose, some political Brownie points by attacking people on welfare and promising to give them a shovel. We've periodically seen this ugly part of the Socreds rise and rise, and I think it was best summed up at that time by my former colleague, who said: "The Socreds indeed had declared war on poverty. They'd started to throw rocks at beggars." That pretty well sums up how they deal with people.

It's always easy to pick on those who are less fortunate. It's always easy to find examples where there's been an abuse of the system, but that does very little to deal with the real problems we face in our society. Hopefully the programs that this ministry has are intended to assist people, get people off the dependency on welfare and give them the skills and incentive to become productive members of our society.

To refer to some item on the news — particularly the BCTV news — it appears that there's a bit of schizophrenia here. On one day we hear members of the Socred back bench attack British Columbia Television, attack British Columbia Television news, rail against them as the worst thing that they've ever seen, and then occasionally we have people on the Socred side referring to B.C. Television news as though it were the gospel. That leaves some confusion in the minds of the public, and I think that confusion is pretty widespread.

But I was appalled at the suggestion that there would somehow be a restriction on the free movement of people and goods in this country. Even more appalling is the fact that when we attempted to raise some of the difficulties that we thought would arise with respect to the free trade agreement, they were brushed aside. This government didn't want to deal with them. We hear that the Premier apparently has some discomfort with the discussions taking place now on a Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement. But surely, within Canada, the suggestion that we would somehow turn our borders between the provinces into some means of preventing the free movement of people and goods should be refuted absolutely by the cabinet. If I'm not mistaken, there has just been interprovincial discussions on how we can overcome those non-tariff barriers which make the free flow of goods between provinces difficult, so that we can come to an end on those things and so that we would all benefit, particularly in western Canada.

The suggestion was put to the minister that there be some restriction, that people on welfare and people who come from other provinces should not be allowed to come in and get jobs, that there be some kind of preferential list. That's even more strange, Mr. Chairman, because I recall the debates that took place quite a number of years ago on the construction of an instant town in the riding of the member for South Peace — or maybe it's in North Peace. What happened at that time was that British Columbia was inundated with non-union construction workers. As a result of this government's policy we found a lot of workers coming in from other parts of Canada, displacing British Columbia workers, and we never heard a peep out of the Socreds — not one peep.

Now we have the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke suggesting that we somehow put impediments onto the free flow of goods and people in this country, and I think it's incumbent upon the minister — this very narrowly touches his area, but he did refer to people on welfare, so I think it's legitimate — to now deny that that's part of this government's policy.

MR. MICHAEL: It's unfortunate that the opposition critic has decided to leave the House. I think he's gone to find a list of charities to make his contributions to, as he has promised the constituents of the Victoria area.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to the member for Prince Rupert — he seems to be mixing matters up somewhat. As the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke, it's certainly my interest to represent not only my constituents but the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. How that member could misinterpret my remarks about what happened on the TV news last night, reflecting the facts of what happened in the city of Vancouver.... A young, healthy male was hired at $10.70 an hour plus benefits — a brand-new arrival from out of province. A city financed by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia or the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver, or both, saw fit to hire a person in full health to sit in an armchair and count pedestrians, when there are thousands and thousands of people in that city, in the lower mainland, within bus distance of that job, who could have been employed at that $10.70 and taken off the welfare rolls for a period of time, getting some experience in the workforce, whether they be handicapped or disabled or single parents. To then compare that with construction workers working in the private sector — which is no business of government other than setting the basic standards — I can't understand.

I certainly make no apologies for bringing the matter to the attention of the minister. I'm sure that the minister will follow through with the city of Vancouver, and I'm sure that Mayor Gordon Campbell and the administrators of the city of Vancouver will see fit to reconsider their policy, and when work is needed that requires that level of training, priority will be given to residents of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver who indeed would be more than happy to go to work for that $10.70 an hour.

[ Page 13104 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members, the Chair would like to remind you that we are discussing vote 52, of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. While we have allowed considerable latitude, the Chair would really appreciate focus on vote 52.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I found the issue relevant to the debates, and Id really like to hear the minister's response.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: What is relevant to the estimates of my ministry is the Canada Assistance Plan Act. The Canada Assistance Plan Act provides that a person can come from any part of the country — move from one province to another — and they are eligible for assistance regardless of where they are. If someone comes here from Ontario, Alberta or Saskatchewan and they have need, by law they're eligible for assistance the same as any other Canadian. It's a universal program with regard to social assistance.

MR. MILLER: Is that something the minister agrees with?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I do agree. It's a cost that is shared across the country It's one of the arguments I used when we debated the business of capping the federal contribution to British Columbia. That is a place where all of us should be aware that there is a great deal of unfairness, because many people have moved to British Columbia from other parts of the country, and we then become responsible for providing the assistance, shared albeit with the federal government, but only up to a limit. I argued that it should not happen. That is not fair, because we are not providing assistance only to British Columbians. We are providing assistance to people from many parts of the country: eastern Canada was hit earlier and much more severely by recession than British Columbia was. The result was that many people came from Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan to this province looking for work; but because so many came, we too were beginning to feel the implications of a recession. As a result there wasn't enough work to go around. Our unemployment rate came up, and many of these people were not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, So they sought social assistance. By law we had to provide that, and that was fair enough. But if by law we're responsible to provide it, then by law it should not be fair to cap the amount of contribution that British Columbia gets, because we are providing benefits in a universal program that involves people other than British Columbians.

[5:30]

MR. MILLER: I appreciated that candid answer from the minister. I think some things are important in terms of national unity, and I was pleased to hear the minister say that he agreed with the system we have in place. I understand the argument on capping, and I agree with you that the system has to be fair. People in this country move for a variety of reasons. If you want to characterize them as leaving Ontario for a particular reason, go ahead; that's in the nature of politics. They leave for lots of reasons. I have been privileged, as we all have, to know Canadians from right across this country who have ended up in British Columbia. In fact, I daresay that there are not many of us who can trace our residence in British Columbia back more than one generation. My parents — or at least one of my parents — came from the Prairies. For example, we see people leaving Saskatchewan because of the severe economic problems they have there. So I'm pleased to hear the minister's answer.

I can only conclude that the suggestion from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke was simply another asinine suggestion from a member of the Socred back bench who is trying to eat up part of our time in these estimates, as opposed to trying to do something constructive about the problems we face. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it over to my colleague from the Cariboo.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss rural British Columbia and the delivery of programs from your ministry. In particular, I would like to concentrate on areas that are probably typical, which might be 100 miles from a centre or as much as 200 for some services, where you get a little bit of time from one ministry and a little bit of time from another ministry. Maybe three ministries will deal with roughly the same kinds of problems, where you have a combination of fallout from an abuse situation: you've got transition, native people in the area, parenting problems occurring there, with spinoff criminal problems so that probation is involved. The coordination, if there is some, presumably takes place at a high level between ministries. But when you deliver those services to the field, people see only a bit of each of those. What methods do you use to coordinate and exchange resources between ministries for some of the more rural areas with populations under 2,000 and sometimes under 1,000, in order to ensure the most effective delivery of services?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That's a good question, Mr. Chairman. Conditions are very different in rural British Columbia from downtown Vancouver and the greater Vancouver area. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages to living in a rural setting. There are a lot of advantages I could think of, but you do not get the same level of service you would get in a metropolitan area. It's impossible to provide that.

In communities such as the one the member described, we try to share offices, for instance, because we're using fewer people. We have interministry committees so we can share responsibilities between ministries. I'm not exactly sure how that works, but I would assume that if one ministry is providing service within a community like that and only a small amount of service to be provided involves another ministry, the larger ministry may provide both of them. I expect that might happen — I'm not sure about the details of that, but I'm told that is correct.

[ Page 13105 ]

I would also like to comment on some remarks made by the member for Prince Rupert that disturbed me. He criticized the views expressed by a member on my side, I don't like that. I think that's a little offensive for anyone to stand up in the House and say: "It was another asinine suggestion." I think all members have the right to come here and express their views and concerns. We don't have to agree with one another, but we surely have to respect the rights of others to say what they feel and what they think. I would hope that we would at least minimize that kind of dialogue during my estimates.

MR. MILLER: I'm glad I've disturbed the minister, Mr. Chairman, because perhaps he needs it. When I hear foolish suggestions from members of the Socred back bench, particularly people who used to be in cabinet — foolish suggestions that show that they don't know anything about how this country is put together, how it's run, how the conventions we have bind us together as a nation — then I'm quite happy to declare that I think they're asinine, and I will continue to do so.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I was just waiting to see if the minister was going to respond in this debate. That's fine; I'll pursue my line of questioning then.

I'd like to suggest to the minister that there's much that needs to be done in this regard. For example, I know of a case in Clinton, which is one of the communities that I had in mind, where you have a part-time mental health worker working out of Ashcroft, and you have a part-time counsellor working. There is a history of abuse in the schools there, as you may know, and there's some fallout from that. The community has been attempting to coordinate, to have a person on a consistent basis for over a period of time. What happens is that they get a little bit of money, some of that gets eaten up with travel, and you have two people providing roughly the same service. One of the them is school-based and therefore can't deal with the kids if they're kicked out of school. The other person can deal with them if they are kicked out of school, but runs an office-type rather than a street-type program. There is a lack of coordination at the local level.

It seems that there's an inability on the part of the managers, in this case Health and Social Services, to work together to say they have the equivalent of one FTE or 80 percent of an FTE that you could reasonably expect as what might seem to be core funding for a prolonged period of time. I hear — this has been going on ever since I was elected a year and a half ago — that efforts are made, but there doesn't seen to be enough flexibility to allow the pooling of funds from different sources and putting them in to do a consistent over time.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I would ask that the member would perhaps provide me with more detail about the lack of service he speaks of, and a case to illustrate someone who is not properly looked after. I have concerns about that.

I appreciate that in small communities and rural areas it is harder for us to provide services, because we don't have the resources — the number of people to draw on — that we have in the Vancouver area. But at the same time, a child who's abused in rural British Columbia suffers as much as a child who's abused in metropolitan British Columbia, and we want to be sure that the need is attended to. If you have concerns, which you obviously do, I would appreciate hearing about them. I would like to see if we can't do something to provide better service.

The system we have, as I said before, is a shared responsibility. We decide, on the nature of the issue, which ministry will be the lead ministry. In those cases the Ministry of Health representative may go in and do some work that would normally be done by Social Services, or vice versa. But if it's not being done properly, I'd like to hear from you on that.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I think your ministry personnel are familiar with the case, and I have written about it in the past. I didn't really want to get into all the details; it's the principle that I see.... What I see happening is somehow a lack of flexibility to really nail the problem.

The other thing you mentioned was that you wanted an example of somebody who wasn't being serviced. I think the issue here is one where you need to have counsellors in the community so there's a bit of trust being built up. It's not as though we've got 16 acute cases just sitting there — some have been identified — but it's to deal with some of the fallout, some of the effects. I think the need is recognized. It's a case of somehow not being able to coordinate and deliver services.

I'll be happy to follow up on that, but I'm sure an inquiry through your ministry will readily provide all the information needed. It's a matter of planning and getting some consistency through time, so that you do have effectiveness of services. Having raised the principle, I understand in theory that we have a mechanism; in practice it's not happening effectively.

The other example I want to talk about is the community of Anahim Lake, which is somewhat burgeoning because of the development of the forest industry. There have been recent huge population increases in the native community, and we've had some change in the schools, so it's very complicated, involving other levels of government — for example, the federal government here. It's the kind of situation where, again, social service is out of Bella Coola, which is 100 miles away. Sometimes the road is impassable. You're getting probation services out of Williams Lake, for example. Indian Affairs is winding down its services. The band has a number of services. It's a very complex situation, where you're ending up with what amounts to gangs going through from both sectors of the community. This is not a racial matter; it's a matter of a small rural community in transition. Bear in mind that unemployment is double-digit in these areas, and in a lot of respects there has been negative growth.

So there is stress in what are normally peaceful and very positive communities. It's affecting young people wherever they are. There has been a series of break-

[ Page 13106 ]

and-enters, and the community is concerned. The community has responded in the spirit of what a lot of us want: the community takes charge and coordinates efforts to do the best it can to cope with the situation.

The long-term solution, it appears, is some kind of planned approach to deal with the recreation needs, and here's a case where I think that, because it is a problem not just within the native community or just the white community, there needs to be a lot of coordination. When you have officials coming from such great distances, it becomes difficult to coordinate the local program. The only government presence, really, is the band administration, because they have rather large amounts of program administration locally. There is no ministry presence in that area, so it becomes a difficult problem to supervise, plan and liaise locally Rather than picking part of the person's job from Bella Coola and part of the person's from Williams Lake, sometimes I think a person living in the community would be able to liaise on a continuing basis with the principal of the school, the band administration and the different counsellors that are there, and look holistically at the problems of the small rural community.

I think we recognize that when there is some community effort, it needs to be met with an equal amount of energy from the ministry. I use this again to illustrate, because I'm informed by the people from the band out there that they need a full-time counsellor. Do we have the ability to work between the federal government and the Ministry of Social Services, where one agency....? Presumably your agency would take a lead role on the part of the province, to consolidate resources so that you could more effectively deal with this serious problem.

[5:45]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, we do work together with different people in order to provide the services in communities such as you describe. If a community is so small that it does not warrant a resident social worker, because there would not be full employment for the person there, then of course we have some difficulty in trying to justify a position like that.

What we often do, though, is work together with Native Affairs, and through them and through the band.... They may be providing some service on the band. We would work with them. Our social workers would come to the community and meet with band people to discuss their problem and how they together might provide the service.

I assume that there are visits made to the community by social workers, but the question of having a resident in the community is one that's related strictly, I think, to the size of the community and being able to justify a full-time position within the community.

MR. ZIRNHELT: When you have people traveling the 200 miles, or 100 miles, you're using up half a day each time they travel. What I'm saying is that we do need to build some flexibility at the bottom end so that you can have an exchange of resources or something like that. Probation gives up to Social Services or whatever, and there's an agreement, joint funding with the band or DIAND or something. It's my very strong feeling — I verified it as I prepared for this with a number of people — that there doesn't appear to be the flexibility at the lower ends of the bureaucracy to make that exchange. If it takes time to put these in place, we need to be looking ahead and making sure we can build that in so we're saving time from probation and mental health and consolidating that into a multi-purpose person.

When I was on the school board, we attempted to put somebody in the school who had social worker abilities, because the school had to liaise with the community. I'm asking for an undertaking that the word goes down to rural areas that they have to consolidate their services in some way for effectiveness — cost-effectiveness and programmatic effectiveness.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'd be pleased to look at the situation you're talking about. We do have a sharing of costs — pooling of funds — but perhaps it's not happening to the extent it should happen at the local level. We will look into that. We deal with so many big social problems in the urban areas that perhaps we haven't paid as much attention as we might have to some of those smaller ones. I don't know. I hope that's not the case, but we'll review it to see what we can do to improve the service.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I thank the minister for his concern, and we'll follow up on this now that the principles are well established.

I have a couple of questions about the family maintenance enforcement program. It's interesting. I've had a flood of people who have to pay family maintenance coming in, but because of hardship that it's placed on their.... It's their own fault they're in the situation they're in. But they feel there's a lack of coordination in terms of determining ability to pay. Because there's a court order, they might have to pay all the arrears as well as the ongoing maintenance, and there's no averaging of the two so they can pay something they can afford. It's creating a problem in their home.

In one case there's a fellow on UI, and he does not get enough to support his present situation plus make the support payment plus the arrears. Assuming that a judge has looked at it, what is taken into account when a decision is made on the final amount that has to be paid?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know if I can answer that question directly. The court would take into consideration the ability of the individual to pay, what would be reasonable to pay in regard to his income. From what I have seen of the program, I would expect that the courts would act fairly in that regard.

I have to tell you that I might have a bit of prejudice in this one, and I acknowledge that. It's going to be a bit difficult to generate sympathy from me for parents who do not meet the responsibility of looking after their families and children. I believe that parents have

[ Page 13107 ]

a lot of rights but that they also have responsibilities. Anyone who fathers a child has a responsibility to care for that child, and I'm not averse to laws that enforce that. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for that. But I expect that it will be dealt with fairly and reasonably so that the person is in fact able to pay.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Another variation on the same theme is that there appear to be cases of outstanding court orders where the court has ordered a certain payment, and on the other hand, the family enforcement people are following their own conclusion as to how much money is owed and how it should be paid. That's the other side of the argument. What is done between the courts and family enforcement in terms of making the final decision on the payments?

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, I really can't, because I don't know what takes place at that particular point in time. The Attorney-General is right: that's not handled by my ministry. The role that my ministry has with regard to family maintenance is that when there is.... In most cases, of course, it's a woman who is left with the children. If in assessing her case we find she has a spouse who has deserted her, and who earns an income but does not support his family, we take over the responsibility on her behalf to collect from that spouse. That's based on the principle that parents have a responsibility to look after their families. That should be their first responsibility, because in these cases somebody pays. If you and I and the rest of the taxpayers are concerned that the burden be placed on them, because somebody has walked away from their responsibility who, in fact, has the ability to contribute towards their keep.... We review the case and determine that this is what's happening, and from there it's turned over to the Attorney-General to enforce it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I realize that there's a grey area here, and it was because we might not get to debating the estimates of the Attorney-General that I wanted to raise the issue and see what approach your ministry is taking.

Finally, there's an issue here which relates to seniors' housing in the 100 Mile House area. As you may or may not be aware, one of the phenomena that occur whenever you've got housing prices going up in the city, is that a lot of people find it difficult to pay their taxes. We have a lot of seniors and retired people moving out into the country and up into the interior, where they find housing is more affordable. Eventually they come to a situation where they need some housing assistance. I note your recent announcements have put nothing into the Cariboo area. There's been something approved in Vernon and Nelson, but nothing in the Cariboo. Yet there have been needs assessments that would appear to show there's a real need for seniors' housing. It's a growing need, and Id like to know what strategy is being developed in that area. In other words, how did you make your decision to allocate nothing to that area this year?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: There were a number of areas with good proposals that did not get any allocation for seniors' housing. The requests for proposals were five times higher than we were able to allot. We allotted 1,280 units, but we had proposals for something in excess of 6,000 units. The ones that we allotted were the ones that we co-funded with the federal government. The size of our program is decided by the amount that the federal government contributes to British Columbia with regard to subsidized housing.

As I explained last night, I was in Saskatoon a year ago and, along with the assistant deputy minister for housing, we managed to get Canada to change the percentage of its allotment somewhat in favour of British Columbia — taking it away from other parts of the country and giving a little more to British Columbia. Despite the fact that the federal government has capped the program and is cutting back on the funds they were putting into it, British Columbia ends up with the same amount of about 1,800 units, counting all subsidized housing. That's subsidized housing for special needs, as well as the ones that you're talking about.

The method that is used is based strictly on the need. This year much of the emphasis for subsidized housing was placed on meeting the needs of families. It was determined that there was a lot of need in the Vancouver area, and I think Surrey had several projects. I remember that there were one or more projects in Coquitlam where they had the problem. There was one out in Langley, I think, and several in Victoria. Your member for Victoria probably has benefited from that. We allocate them on the basis of need, and I would like to take a look at the allocation process. I think some of the outlying areas should perhaps have had more consideration, because they too have requirements. The fact is that if you get away from Vancouver you can build more houses for the same amount of money, because the costs are less in some of the outlying areas.

MR. MILLER: I want to raise an issue with the minister with respect to privatization and the implications of that, at least as it relates to planning in my community. I might perhaps outline it. At one time, in terms of having things like group homes or homes for a special purpose — to deal with pregnant teens, teenagers, you name it — the system was that the ministry would basically own the facility. In terms of planning — from my experience, at any rate — it would try to disperse those facilities throughout the community — this maybe has more bearing on small communities — so that as much as possible you maintained the appearance of a single-family dwelling in a residential neighbourhood; you know, kind of normal, "fits in with the neighbourhood, " avoids the kind of institutionalization that can be a detriment in trying to develop these programs. But with privatization, when you marry privatization with the zoning regulations, it is in fact impossible to do that now.

Just to illustrate that, the system now is that the ministry invites proposals from individuals. This has become a business, and some individuals will actually

[ Page 13108 ]

build a building with the intention of bidding for the services of, say, providing a group home. The municipal zoning regulations don't allow you to refuse that kind of activity in a residential zone. What has developed is that, instead of being dispersed throughout the community, those facilities have generally ended up collected in one particular area. That is self-defeating for the ministry, because what you have then is residents of the neighbourhood saying: "Look, we've got two or three or four of these types of facilities. The neighbourhood is turning into an institution instead of a residential neighbourhood."

[6:00]

I haven't yet, in discussions with the city and your ministry, come up with any way of dealing with this issue other than: well, we'll try not to let it happen. So I'd like to get into this in terms of whether or not this is an issue in other communities — what approach the ministry has taken to try to deal with it.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I realize that the ministry has the authority, if you like, to locate group homes in a community, and we could override the local objections, but I'm not aware that that's happened anywhere. We work very closely with communities to determine where they should be located — where the community is happy about them being located.

Generally speaking, when people make a proposal to provide a group home, it's something that has to have the support of the local community. We do not go and force it onto a community, because we require the cooperation of the community after the group home is developed.

I'm not aware that there are a lot of conflicts. I know there have been lots of times when a group home has been proposed in a certain location and the community has objected to it. There are times, I have to confess to you, when we have to be somewhat insistent, because very often people are criticizing the unknown. They are unsure about the implications of that group home for the community, so rather than take any risk — because they deem it to be a risk — would object to it. We need to be a little bit firm that there has to be some place in a community for people from that community who suffer from disabilities to be located. It's only right that people should have an opportunity to return to their own communities, and it's also only right that their own communities should be willing to accept them.

Sometimes people have a lot of second thoughts about the objection to it. I remember going to such a facility; I think it was up in the Shuswap area, a little farm that had been set up for the mentally disabled. They had a few animals on the place. I went there and visited and met the people who were living there. They were happy living in that kind of environment. The interesting part was that the neighbour was an elderly gentleman who had really objected when the group home was going to be established on this little piece of land. He had done everything he could to prevent it from happening, but it had gone ahead nevertheless; the local community had said they thought it would be all right.

When I was up there visiting, he called me over to the fence, saying: "I understand you're the Minister of Social Services. I'd like to talk to you." I went over to him, and he said: "I want to tell you that I was an opponent of this. I didn't want these people next to me. The reason I called you over is that I want to tell you that I'm ashamed of the position that I took. Now these people have been here for a while, I've lived next door to them, and it's added a dimension to my life in my elderly years. I work with them, help them and give them advice. It's been a very enjoyable experience for me — no problem at all."

It's an example of how sometimes people are concerned about something that really doesn't exist at all.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RABBITT: By leave, I move that the proceedings in regard to the third reading of Bill 6, intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act, be declared null and void, and the bill be recommitted forthwith with respect to section 78 and section 81.

Leave granted.

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On sections 78 and 81.

HON. MR. RABBITT: I would first like to thank my critic and the opposition House Leader for agreeing on short notice to get this particular amendment on the order paper here.

What we are doing in the changes to sections 78 and 81 is making amendments that will make the language in the act much clearer, especially for laypeople who are not familiar with sittings and procedure of the House.

We had in the act a clause specifying that the moratorium started on a specific action of the House, that action being the first reading of the bill. What these amendments do in sections 78 and 81 is clearly replace the wording of the first reading with the actual specific date so that members and staff in the Legislature will not be getting calls from the public on the specific date of the implementation of the moratorium.

MR. ROSE: Yes, we agreed to this to assist the Clerks in avoiding a lot of needless phone calls. What this does, to put it briefly, is to make explicit the day of first reading, and that's all it does.

I'd like to point out, though, that the Law Clerk pointed this out as an amendment to the officials here last Thursday night, and it was refused at that time.

[ Page 13109 ]

The approach was made and refused by the officials the evening we were in third reading, and that made it necessary for us to come back and do it again today.

Amendment approved.

Sections 78 and 81 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RABBITT: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Pension Benefits Standards Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1991

HON. MR. FRASER: Prior to our moving second reading, I'll mention to the assembly that the bill contains ten amendments dealing with a variety of different programs.

Speaking to the more important ones, I'll bring to the attention of the House that the bill amends the Assessment Act in order to provide a transition to a more precise framework for the assessment of railway rights-of-way.

The Ferry Corporation Act is amended to increase the limit for the outstanding debt of the corporation from $250 million to $460 million in order to provide the necessary authority to complete the corporation's capital expenditure program. This amendment is consistent with the accounting profession's generally accepted principles for calculating outstanding liabilities and with the policies followed by the government for reducing debt.

The Independent School Act and the School Act are both amended. The amendment in the Independent School Act parallels amendments in the School Act so that the definition of the school age in the Independent School Act is consistent with the enrolment provisions of the School Act. The amendments to the School Act remove reference to dual entry and provides that entry to educational programs for first-year students must be in September. A new Section is also added to the School Act to provide that school boards shall not reduce or eliminate funding for students in special education programs without prior approval of the minister.

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act is amended by adding public utilities to the definition of government buildings, highways and public works in part 2 of the act. This will make it clear that the minister possesses the authority to acquire or expropriate land, where necessary, for the use of construction or maintenance of a public utility. This is one of the more interesting aspects. The amendment is required to relocate utility lines when roads are realigned and to meet the requirements of the federal government under the Indian Act before it transfers land to the province on Indian reserves, which is necessary to permit construction, operation use and maintenance for utility purposes.

This bill also amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to expand the motor fuel tax rebate program for the disabled. The rebate program, which currently assists several thousand disabled persons in British Columbia, will no longer be limited to people with drivers' licences. It will now permit disabled persons without valid drivers' licences, such as the blind, to be eligible to participate in the program. This is an enhancement of the existing act.

The Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2) is amended by adding a new section on the eligibility of Harrison Hot Springs for more money to purchase a new fire truck without having to start at the enactment process for the loan authorization bylaw over again due to a procedural defect in the original process.

The bill amends the Private Post-Secondary Education Act. The first amendment to that act ensures that the post-secondary courses offered by certain independent secondary schools be subject to the financial security requirements of the Private Post-Secondary Education Act. The second amendment will ensure that revenue received from accreditation and registration of fees received under the Private Post-Secondary Education Act will be retained by the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission to offset the cost of carrying out the commission's responsibilities.

Lastly, the Workers Compensation Act was amended to improve the procedure for obtaining access to medical review panels and thereby speed appeals by claimants under the Workers Compensation Act. The amendments will do this by allowing claimants who receive a medical decision from the review panel to appeal directly to a medical review panel. This will allow the new appeal division to refer much of the present backlog to a medical review panel with the consent of the appellant where there is a medical dispute. This will eliminate the need to obtain a medical decision of the Workers' Compensation Board in order to go before a medical review panel to resolve a purely medical dispute.

I commend this bill to the House and move second reading.

MR. SIHOTA: As always, this is a miscellaneous statute amendment act; therefore it has no principle and one cannot debate it in length. I just want to make

[ Page 13110 ]

a couple of short comments to let the minister know what areas will be subject to a lengthy debate. I would suspect some of the provisions would deal with education and others with Workers' Compensation, and in particular there will be matters the minister can expect to be grilled like a hamburger on. On top of that, let me say to members of the House that there is some regret with respect to this bill in that this government is definitely trying to cut and run from the Legislature. The legislation here just represents a mish-mash of last-second things that they want to achieve, when there are better and more meaningful ways in which to bring these matters before the House. That, of course, will be dealt with later on as well.

[6:15]

HON. MR. FRASER: Quite frankly, I don't expect to get grilled like a hamburger — I think we'll do a little better than that. Secondly, the changes here are significant and worthy, so I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. MILLER: As I said in second reading, we'll be supporting the bill. Section 1 excludes woodlot licences from the major licence category, and hopefully the result will be a reduction in red tape and the cost that has to borne by woodlot owners in terms of their reporting requirements.

Several recommendations were made with respect to woodlots over the last several years. A number of reports have recommended that this be done, and we're pleased to see that the government is doing it. But there were other recommendations concerning woodlots. Indeed, there is a fair-sized lobby in the province on the question of woodlots and what benefits they can bring. The whole notion of managing on a smaller scale and being closer to the land and more intimately involved with what takes place on the land is one that people have expressed a very strong desire to pursue in this province.

We did have an announcement a number of years ago concerning that and the concept of increasing the amount of land under this woodlot licence category, as well as on incorporating new lands, such as undeveloped agricultural lease lands. We've been going through the motions on the woodlot program. In my view, there's also a need to improve the extension services. I think it's integral to a successful woodlot program to have good extension services. But we don't see very much action. We're pleased that you're taking this first tentative step with respect to the program, but given the reports on woodlots and the recommendations, to go much farther...

Mr. Chairman, I know you're going to tell me I'm out of order, but I'll pose the question anyway: when can we see some action with respect to these other important issues, if we're going to have a successful woodlot program? I personally believe that it does offer many benefits. I think that the whole notion of stewardship and developing a forestland ethic has proven very successful in other jurisdictions, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be just as successful and just as beneficial to the long-term health of the forest industry in British Columbia. I will pose that question on section I and see how the minister responds.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We are very supportive of the woodlot program. In fact, I've said many times that we wanted to expand it, enlarge it — if that's the word — and see that it flourishes, because it's a good concept. We fully intend to do that.

However, this particular bill does not deal with that. We are on section 1. With this bill in section I we are attempting to make it easier to manage a woodlot by removing the definition "major licence." I'd be happy to get into a discussion on the philosophy of woodlots at another time. But I don't think it would be....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, and that may be very possible too, later on this summer, but I can't guarantee that.

Section 1, which we're in committee on, deals specifically with removing the definition of "major licence" from woodlots, and I think it's a step that will be well received by the operators of woodlots.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Forest Amendment Act, 1991, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker

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

[ Page 13111 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

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

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, you can understand that we are put in a rather awkward position inasmuch as the Minister of Social Service and Housing is not yet here. It therefore seems rather artificial for members on our side of the House to proceed to ask questions and to register concerns about the operation of this ministry, given that there is indeed an even larger gap in government benches than is normally the case. I note that the Minister of Environment, the Attorney-General and the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services are here, and my colleagues and I would be delighted to have an opportunity to discuss the estimates of any of those ministries.

I'm wondering if perhaps some member opposite would care to leap into the breach or some such thing; or perhaps it is the case that members opposite would like to ask questions in the absence of the minister, because they know they will be safe in terms of the answers they receive.

Mr. Chairman, I await your guidance.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would be quite happy to fill in for the Minister of Social Services, who is on his way to the House at this moment, although we do like to provide him with a little sustenance so that he can make it through till 9:30 tonight. I would be very happy to take any questions for him, but having heard the type of questions that were being asked this afternoon, I don't think he's really going to miss anything. I think we could proceed with the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it's patently absurd to have a discussion on an estimate with the spending magnitude of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and the complexity of the issue without the minister present.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The minister is here.

MR. GABELMANN: I suspect that as the minister makes his way to his place, the debate can continue. I’d be glad to relinquish my place to the member for Kootenay.

MS. EDWARDS: I must suggest to the minister that I suppose he got the fastest dinner in existence, because I watched him go into the dining-room not four minutes ago, I believe, and his assistant there went into the dining-room and he's right back. I hope the minister is able to concentrate. I hope he's not thinking about those marvellous dinners that are going on down there and the desserts that were being passed around.

However, I do have some questions for the minister. My questions relate to a situation that was brought to my attention. In the Comox Valley there is a family of five, and they have a number of problems, a couple of which I believe relate to how the ministry operates. I would like to ask the minister some questions about this, because there are some serious problems with the way this family was forced to deal with their situation.

The family's name is Webber — Charlotte and Joe Webber. They were written up in the Comox District Free Press in an April issue which described the fact that this family of five.... Actually it was a family of six at one time, because they did have a foster child. The foster child had to be taken away because the child didn't have a place to live with the family, who couldn't find an affordable place to live at the end of April.

The father of this family suffers from muscular dystrophy, and the three blood children of the couple also suffer from various degrees of the same disease. Mr. Webber, who is 53 years old, has suffered the ravages of muscular dystrophy for ten years and has been unable to work. He was a nursing orderly but can no longer work, and he is now on a disability pension. They survive on a monthly cheque of approximately $1,400 for the whole family. At that time it was a family of six, as I say, with a foster child as well. The foster child has had to leave because this family had no place to live, and at the end of April they were actually forced into a camper trailer to live. They are still in that camper trailer in the Comox Valley.

There are now some more problems for the family. As background I might say that Mrs. Webber, who has not been able to have regular work — she's been a full-time caregiver and a full-time worker at times — has had terrible problems. There was no way that they could get housing, and they were in a situation where the $1,400 a month simply couldn't deal with their needs.

This is not a family that has been on social assistance. Perhaps Mrs. Webber, who has frequently been unable to get work and for long periods may have been on unemployment insurance, has not been available for social assistance because her husband has this disability pension.

I would like to ask the minister first of all about this housing problem. How is it that a family of five, with four of them sufferers from muscular dystrophy — in other words, the father unable to work and the children suffering various degrees of the disease — cannot find a place to live in the Comox Valley?

[6:30]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I tried to find out what had happened. I don't want to distort the picture. They were directed from their local MLA's office to the MPs office because the local MLA, who is the Minister of Education, said that he wouldn't help them. Through the MP's office they have found housing, which they will be able to move into this September — on the particular income that they have.

I wanted to know how much of the housing allocation that the provincial ministry puts out goes into the Comox Valley, and I'll leave it at that. I'll ask the minister what kind of provision is made for low-cost housing in the Comox Valley. How much normally? How many units have been built in the last year? How many units are expected to be built? How

[ Page 13112 ]

much of the budget that goes to the province for housing goes into the Comox Valley?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can't answer that question at the moment. The deputy assistant responsible for housing is not here right at this moment but will be back in a few minutes or within half an hour, and then we will provide the answer to that. I don't know, until we get the information, what amount of social housing we have in the Comox Valley, but we'll get the information. Perhaps it's not a great deal; I'm concerned that the member says the family has no place to live. Is that because they insist on living where there isn't social housing available, or is it for some other reason? They want social housing where they want to live, and perhaps there isn't any right there.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister brings up an interesting point; he suggests that it is their problem. They have been living there in a camper trailer since the end of April and will live there until September. And the minister says: "Are they living there because they won't go where there is low-cost housing?"

Does the minister say that they should relocate somewhere where there is low-cost housing? Although they are residents of the Comox Valley, and their children would probably be in schools in the Comox Valley, and they have connections in the Comox Valley and probably a good deal of support from their neighbours and friends in the Comox Valley, is he saying that they should move somewhere else?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Not necessarily that they should move someplace else. But if we're talking about a particular house they're looking for as a single-family residence, then I suppose they would have to find a house they could rent in the Comox Valley. I don't know whether there are any or not. If we're talking about living in a multi-unit building, that sort of building may not exist where they are — depending on the demand, of course. I don't know how many people live in that area and how much demand there is for it. Is it something that's been requested?

MS. EDWARDS: It's interesting the minister should ask, because it's what I was going to ask the minister. What does the minister know about the housing needs in the Comox Valley? How does the minister find out what the needs are in the Comox Valley? How does the minister make his allocation of funds for housing in the Comox Valley, and on what information does he base his allocation of funds?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I've repeatedly said, Mr. Chairman, that we make our allocation for funding for housing on the basis of need. Where the need is considered to be the greatest, that's where the housing is built. The member opposite is perhaps trying to make the point that it was built in some other area and that that area wasn't given consideration. I think that if you check the records of allocation, you will find that a good percentage of the social housing this year is being built in areas represented by members on your side of the House, because that's where the greatest need was determined to be.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure what the connection is between what kind of representative is in a riding and where the housing is, but if the minister would like to clarify that, I would certainly be glad to hear what he has to say. If he is trying to say that the most recent project for social housing was built in Nanaimo, that is the best information I've been able to find. Is the minister saying this family should move to Nanaimo?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, it's not for us to tell the family where to move. The family has the choice of where they want to live. But at the same time, I don't think you would expect the ministry to guarantee that they will be able to build social housing in every single location in the province.

We have so much money to allocate to social housing, and we have allocated that amount. As a matter of fact, we had requests for about five times the number of units that were built. We built all the units that are cost-shared with us in the federal program. They were provided and built on the basis of where the people doing the evaluation thought there was the greatest need, along with other considerations such as the management of the project and a few other criteria. But need is the main one, and the need was considered very high in such places as Surrey, Victoria and greater Vancouver, but not out into the Fraser Valley very far. I think there was one approval for Langley and none approved for Matsqui-Abbotsford, Dewdney or Chilliwack, that I'm aware of. In the eastern end of the valley there were no approvals. There were some good applications from those communities, but when you have 1,280 units to allocate and you've got over 6,000 units proposed, you have to make some choices.

MS. EDWARDS: Perhaps the minister would like to answer my question as to how he makes the choices.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'd be pleased to do that, because the minister doesn't make them at all. The minister has absolutely nothing to do with it. When I see the allocation of the units for the year, it comes to me in a book. I don't know if we have one of them here. It shows all the applications received and what happened to each one. Here's one that was approved; here's another one that was approved. Recommended, it says; recommended, recommended, not recommended, not recommended — and so it goes, through the whole list.

It's the same for allocating housing units as it is if somebody comes in and applies for social assistance. They don't come to the minister and say: "Well, do you know that person? Do you like that person? Is it okay with you if we give that person social assistance?" The person gets social assistance on the basis of need, following the program that is outlined. These houses are allocated on the same basis. They have a system for evaluation, and the main criterion in that system is need. Following need, they consider the organization that would be providing the management and sitting of

[ Page 13113 ]

it. The ones that score the highest are the ones that are allocated.

When I receive them on my desk, it shows all of the ones that are recommended; it shows the ones that are not recommended. For your information, not one of those was changed. The book stayed exactly the way it was. I did not even suggest that one be changed.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, the minister knows that he is ultimately responsible for what he signs. Presumably he must have faith in the system, which hands him a list. It doesn't come out of the sky or out of the blue. It doesn't come from nowhere at all; it comes from somewhere. The minister must know the criteria that cause somebody to say: "That's recommended. That's not recommended." If the minister says it is need, my question is: what kind of need are you talking about? When you have a family of five who can no longer keep their foster child because they don't have a place to put that child, and have to give up the foster child, and are now back to five, four of whom suffer a severe disease — an affliction of the nervous system — how is the minister assessing need? That's my question.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The units that were allocated were multi-unit developments: 20 units, 30 units, 40 units; some of them smaller, some of them larger. We're not talking about a single-family residence. None of those were built that I'm aware of; it was all multi-units. So it would not be the need of one particular individual in the area; it would be the need within that general area.

Your member from Surrey comes from an area where a lot of families needed accommodation. We could say to those families: "Well, why don't you move out of Surrey and go live someplace else where housing might be easier to get or might in fact be cheaper to build?" But the fact is that those people who live in Surrey, and the families that need the help and the accommodation, live in Surrey because that's close to where they work. They can get to their job from Surrey. Because many people live in the Surrey area, there was a big need there. So several of the units were allocated to Surrey because of the large population and the need.

I don't interfere with the process. I am satisfied that the people who do the evaluation do it very fairly. I get requests from lots of people: "Will you look at my particular proposal?" I get it from members on your side of the House, and I get it from people on my side of the House. Naturally, members are interested in seeing development come to their community.

I would have liked to have seen one in my community. I know that in the district of Mission there was a very nice application. I know the people who provide the management of it. They have years of experience; they do a good job. I know the need is there. I would have liked to have seen them get that, but they didn't It wasn't recommended, because although there was a need for it in Mission, there was a greater need for it in Surrey. So it went to Surrey.

I accept that. I don't think that when we're allocating these particular projects.... We allocate them on the basis of where they are needed, where it is most fair for them to go. Politics has nothing to do with it. My personal choice is not what matters; it's that the evaluation process be fair. What I look at is the process we use: is it fair or not? I'm satisfied that it's fair. Therefore I have nothing to say about the recommendations. I accept them.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister suggests that he thinks the process is fair. I'm not questioning that. I'm laying out a very severe case as I see it. I don't know the whole question in Comox Valley. I do know that the vacancy rate is 0.1 percent, which is extremely low. I am asking the minister how he believes that process goes ahead, because he says it's fair. Can the minister tell me what the process is?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, the overriding requirement of the process is that there be demonstrated need for the project. Need is not quickly and easily determined. When people apply for a project like this, they submit names of the people who would be tenants were this particular project built. Then the people in the ministry analyze the list of tenants. Sometimes there will be one, two or three projects in a community, and when they evaluate the tenants and examine the list, they find the same tenants listed on several projects, because people are anxious to get into subsidized housing, since it is a very good deal. They will put their name down hoping that if one project or the other goes ahead, regardless, they will find accommodation. But the ministry has to know that when they're determining the need in an area.

So first of all they determine the need in a particular area. That's not an individual family's need, but the need of the area in general — how many people require this type of housing in this location. After they have determined that, they evaluate the site and classify it as excellent, good, fair or poor. Then there is the question of the design of the building, which might also be classified in any one of those classifications. After that, there is the operation of the facility. Does the society that is going to manage this facility have a good record of managing this type of housing?

[6:45]

They allot a point system to each of these categories, and when they're finished with the evaluation they add it all up. The ones that score the highest are the ones they allocate. You can question the principle of it. I look at it and think it's fair. But maybe there should also be regional consideration — to look at how much housing is happening in each locale over a number of years and to make sure that each location gets some subsidized housing. Maybe that should play a bigger part in it. My view is that perhaps it should.

But the process is there, and it doesn't favour anybody. The people who make the selection have no prejudice; they are there simply to do their job and evaluate it on a set of clearly established principles. On the basis of that, we end up with the ones that are recommended and those that are not.

From the point the member is making, I recognize that you have a family in this particular location with

[ Page 13114 ]

very severe needs. I'm concerned about this particular family and would like to investigate the circumstances. I don't know that you can expect government to resolve this by building a multi-unit complex in that location so that this one family would have a place to go. I suppose there are others in that community who would want it too, because most communities have some people who would like subsidized housing and would qualify for it. But I would like to look at this particular case to see just what we might do to assist. If the family is suffering from illness — and it's a large family and they don't have accommodation — that's a situation that concerns me. It doesn't really run true to the approach the ministry has, because it seems to me there are always compassionate grounds in this business. I've seen many cases where it seems to me the ministry has made an extra effort to care for those in extraordinary circumstances. If you'll provide me with the details of this one, I would like to have a look at it to see what we might do to help.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. You have laid out the criteria, and I gather the first criterion used by the people who judge where the money shall go is how many people are there with a certain degree of need. Although you haven't laid out the degree of need, I gather that is the overwhelming criterion and that, in fact, if there is a point system, the most points would be assigned to that.

I might point out to the minister — and if I'm wrong, perhaps he could tell me so — that I understand that all of this information is put forward by societies or groups applying for the money, that there is no particular effort on the part of the ministry to go out and look in an area. Because the minister says he's interested in regional balance, he might look for the ministry to gather the information. I'm not sure there's going to be highly balanced information go forward if you're going to collect information only from people who respond to your request for proposals.

I put that to you not because I know that's the case — and I can't make the case that it is a situation that needs addressing — but because I can see this family who sat in the Comox Valley for months on end at the top of the list. Anybody who finds housing on a housing list evidently goes to the bottom again. Even if they just move in with their parents or something, they go to the bottom of the list. But this family stayed at the top of the list for months on end. Finally, in an area with a 0.1 percent vacancy rate, they have been promised a house in September. That's five months after they had to bring this family into a camping trailer which they have lived in in some of the cold months of this year, from the end of April on — not the coldest months, but it hasn't been all that warm, and the minister will concede that.

However, if the minister is particularly interested in the problems of this family, I would like to direct him to another problem they've had: they cannot afford to pay a premium for their medical. They have been to Social Services and Housing to see about this a number of times, and the ministry didn't say anything to them about the fact that they could apply for medical coverage alone. One of the children in this family needs a colostomy, and they can't have it done because they can't even afford the premiums for the medicare let alone the surgery itself. They are currently under review, Mr. Minister. But they went a number of times to find out what could be done for them, and they were never told that this was available to them. I would like to know whether it is normally a requirement of the ministry to tell people like this that there is certain help available. Why would it be that this family made the number of visits they did to Social Services and Housing and were not told that they could at least apply for medical coverage separately from any other support?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know why this family apparently wasn't told. All I know is that our social workers certainly are aware that it could be applied for through the Ministry of Health. It's not unusual information for the social worker to give out. Why they didn't do it in this particular case, I don't know. That's also something we can check into. It seems that the one family is having a lot of problems dealing with the ministry, so whether that's a problem with the ministry or some difficulty with the family, I don't know. I'd certainly like to check into it.

You asked about subsidized housing in Comox and in the Comox Valley. The Comox Valley has 45 seniors' units and four special-needs units.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to thank the minister for his offer to look into this particular case. The medications for this family are a minimum of $1,200 a year, so he can probably understand quite well why they can't afford their medical premiums and some of the medications which they are not taking. So if, as the minister said, he would look into this case, I will certainly send him some information.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions about the number of judicial reviews pertaining to income assistance that are conducted through the ministry in a year.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know that, but I'll check through our material and get the number for you.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister can indicate the approximate cost of a judicial review.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says he'll also obtain that information. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate the parameters for who makes a decision as to whether or not a tribunal decision will go to a judicial review, and for what reasons.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It would be the director of GAIN and the lawyer for the Attorney-General's ministry.

[ Page 13115 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister then saying that the decision is not made locally, but instead by the ministry here in Victoria?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's made by the director of GAIN in consultation with the Attorney-General lawyer.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I look forward to the information as to why those decisions are made. I have some concerns about a trend that I am seeing, and I'm not altogether sure whether it is purely a local trend or a trend throughout the province.

Recently I was involved with a case, and I'll describe it for the minister. It's a family on income assistance. They have two children. The family is minimally employed and under considerable hardship trying to deal with health and transportation issues for that minimal employment. The wife in this situation has been diagnosed as having incurable Crohn's disease, which incurs unexpected expenses for the family. They also have difficulties dealing with other medical and dental costs for the children and other members of that family. The husband in this situation has temporary employment. It is seasonal. Actually he's a sweeper at the PNE and has asked the ministry for help with transportation to get back and forth to work — he's looking for a bus pass, I believe. On top of that they've asked for some additional support with some of their medical costs.

The request for additional support was turned down by your ministry. There was a tribunal, and the tribunal unanimously supported the transportation and increased medical costs to the family. The approximate cost to the ministry for transportation and medical costs was about $190 a month.

The ministry subsequently decided to take this case to a judicial review. I can't help but wonder what the cost to the ministry is for that judicial review, when we have a case where, at very minimal support to the four members of this family, we could have a family functioning, where the husband is out working when the work is available, and being able to maintain some semblance of dignity.

I don't know whether the minister has actually got any information there about the judicial review. But this is only one case that has been brought to my attention. As I said, if this is a trend in the ministry, where we are involving cases such as this with the courts, it really raises some serious concern about the process, the potential for intimidation of people going through tribunals and other issues, which we'll deal with as well.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think what the member was saying is that in this particular instance, the amount of money was not very great, so why bother going to a judicial review; that it would have been easier, and it might even have been cheaper, to have granted the travel allowance and not bothered with the judicial review. As it turned out, the ministry did both They went to the judicial review and, after that, ended up providing the transportation allowance.

I'm not surprised that in a certain number of cases the ministry will go to a judicial review and lose. I'm glad that's the case. It at least shows that there is a democratic process at work, where the people who apply under the GAIN Act have an opportunity to appeal a decision that's made and get justice.

[7:00]

The other side of that is that from the ministry's point of view, the ministry presumably makes the judgment on what they believe is proper under the act, and we are compelled to abide by the act. It's not simply a matter of money or that it's such a small amount, that it's better just to forget about it than to get involved in the process. You have to recognize that this ministry deals with many thousands of people, and it's actually unfair.... Earlier today one of the members on your side — I'm not sure who it was; maybe it was you — was talking about the necessity for fairness in the system. So it is important that when we make these decisions, we make them on what we believe the law says we are supposed to do, and that we treat everybody in the same manner.

I can appreciate that there are cases that run very close to the centre of the line. It can go either way, and I suppose that's a judgment call. But I don't know that you can fault the ministry for testing a decision — for making a decision, knowing that people have the opportunity to go to a review, and then having it demonstrated whether the ministry is right or not. It's a process that's there because the ministry feels an obligation to abide by the act; the act says that they must, as a matter of fact. But it's a discretionary call, I suppose.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm a little confused by the minister's explanation, and I'm not altogether sure the minister himself is familiar with the process of tribunals. Once the ministry has made a decision, the client has a right to appeal. That appeal process then sets up a tribunal. In the tribunal there are three representatives: one from the ministry, an independent chair, and either the client or an advocate for the client. The arguments at that tribunal pertain to the act, and the decisions of the tribunal have to be reflected in the act by quoting the act. The tribunal has the power to overturn a decision of the ministry, and in this case it unanimously supported the client's right to these services.

The tribunal — unanimously, I emphasize; the independent chair, the ministry representative and the client's representative — quoted the different sections of the act in support of the family. If I'm to understand correctly, the ministry then decided from Victoria that this tribunal had to be further investigated, and engaged a judicial review in that process.

The argument of the ministry was, to quote one of the ministry workers, that "the decision was made on sympathetic grounds alone." The concern I have is twofold. First, the tribunal sat there looking at the act, made the decision that it was mandated by the act to make — that these people had a right to transportation services and medical services — and made those services available to those people. The ministry, in its wisdom, decided to completely overrule that. Keeping

[ Page 13116 ]

in mind that tribunals are not precedent-setting, this decision deals only with this particular family. Putting in place a judicial review not only costs a tremendous amount of money, when the decision was justified by the act, but it also causes a considerable amount of further distress for this family, who very clearly, when you look at their history, are trying the best that they can.

On top of that, it causes a considerable amount of distress for people who have been involved in tribunals in the past. One of the ways the ministry works effectively is if they have the support of community people who are prepared to give up their time — all of this is voluntary — to either advocate on behalf of a client or sit as an independent chair. What this feels like to the community is a little bit of tyranny. The people who in the past have offered to give up their time to function as representatives on tribunals are now saying: "No way! I don't want to have anything to do with this. I'm getting summonsed to court." It really raises the question of how effective that tribunal appeal process is going to be for people in communities when they are intimated by the weight of the ministry

I would be more than happy to have that clarified, but I think the ministry has to understand its role in this process and weigh very seriously the bringing down of the full weight of the ministry on decisions such as this and the full weight of the judiciary on a client, where there doesn't seem to be any justification for it, neither in financial terms nor in the sanctity of the act. As I said, the decision of the tribunal was unanimous, and the act was followed.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think the member is suggesting that rather than have a tribunal we could perhaps have some kind of arbitration or mediation system that would determine whether or not this particular appeal should be granted. It's based, of course, on the law under the social service act — has it been carried out properly or not? The deputy tells me that all the decisions made by tribunals are not necessarily bound precisely by the act. There are exceptions. The judicial involvement in this process is to make sure that what we're dealing with is what is contained in the act — what we're entitled to deal with.

There are not many judicial reviews. In '90-91 there were 1,784 appeals and 12 of those went to judicial review. I don't yet have the cost of that, but we're working on those numbers.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm more perplexed than ever, because I happen to know of two in one district within the last month.

I'm still a little confused by the minister's response, because the appeal process and the tribunal, in a way, is an arbitration — differences between two parties, the client and the ministry. That's the purpose of the tribunal. I'm not arguing against a tribunal. I am suggesting that in cases where it would appear that the tribunal has followed the process, argued the legislation and been successful unanimously, and the award is not significant.... I've clearly said on two occasions that the tribunals are not precedent-setting — in other words, just because you win a tribunal doesn't mean that somebody coming after you can be assured of the same decision; they may have go through the process all over again.

For this particular situation, the arguments were that the ministry did not adequately administer the GAIN act; that request for transportation costs would .significantly lessen their hardship, poverty and suffering" — as quoted in the act; also, "these transportation costs can be seen as necessary, otherwise undue hardship will occur and has occurred." Again they quoted sections of the GAIN act. The sections are 4 (1), 3 (b) (c) (i) and (d), and refer to schedules A3 (b) and 3:

"Medical and dental benefits, as provided under the ministry's plan are payable under GAIN regulations 29 (3), GAIN Act 1 (f). Therefore, until the family becomes financially independent and receiving no income assistance from the ministry for a period of 12 consecutive months ... that they be granted the transportation costs equalling the amount of one multizone bus pass, one single-zone bus pass, and that the entire family receive full medical and dental coverage, as provided under the ministry plan."

What we're talking about is supporting a family that's already on GAIN, and one of the members is looking for and has found temporary work. We're looking at getting this person to and from work and supporting the family with medical benefits. Section 1 (f) of the act provides that in this act "income assistance means generally any other form of aid that is necessary for the purpose of relieving poverty, neglect or suffering." Section 4 of the regulations provide that:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of these regulations and the schedule, where the minister considers that undue hardship will occur, he may authorize the payment of benefits for a person who is otherwise not entitled to receive benefits because he has assets, income, anticipated assets or anticipated income in excess of the limit set out for these regulations and schedules."

And it goes on.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

So throughout this tribunal — and I can continue to quote the arguments as they pertain to the government's own legislation — they followed the procedure, based on the act — the government's own legislation. The three parties unanimously supported these people. And the ministry decided that this decision was made on sympathetic grounds and sent it off to a judicial review. I'll actually give the minister some more information about this specific case, because I would hope he would look into it. I'm very concerned that this is setting up a situation in the province that can only be seen as intimidation, rather than conducting the business of the ministry and fulfilling the goals as set out — and I've quoted a number of sections in the act that very clearly would lead to support, this particular family and others in the province. If the ministry, through the use of judicial reviews, is trying to frustrate its own act, then maybe we should call it on that. Maybe we should say that the ministry is trying to discourage people from taking advantage of its own legislation through this type of intimidation.

[ Page 13117 ]

The question I want to ask, and I'm looking forward to the minister answering, is how much all of this is costing. It's money that could very clearly go to lessening "hardship, poverty and suffering in this province" — just to quote the government's own legislation.

[7:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot provide the costs to the member; we don't have them available. The reason I can't provide them is that the legal work is done by the Attorney-General's ministry, and we don't have a record of the costs involved. They do the processing of the claims for us, and we rely on their service. We'd have to get the information from them before we could make it available to you.

The issue here is not whether it would be nice or good for the family to have that or whether the family needs it; they may very well need it. The whole question here is of equity and fairness to all people in the social service system. The playing-field has to be level. If there is a problem, if we need to look at certain sections of the service we provide, then we'd better look at it from the point of view of all users, not just a few who happen to go through this process. Sometimes when the tribunals make a decision, it certainly is based on the evidence around them, what they think the needs are in a particular situation and, I'm sure, what they believe is appropriate in those circumstances.

The point is that we are governed by an act, and if it's the view of the ministry that the decision is clearly outside the act and that the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in making an allocation that really is not provided for in the act, then we may send it to a judicial review, because that is where the issue of fairness and equity and a level playing-field comes into the matter. If it's something we wouldn't give to one, then is it fair to give it to another?

You say that it doesn't set a precedent; I'm not sure that it wouldn't. I think the things done within the ministry and benefits granted are monitored very closely. One of the things the ministry has to be very careful about is trying to treat people equally. Certainly if we treat one a little less equally than another, we hear about it right away. People do know what kind of benefit someone else receives, and a good deal about each case; it's not a secret. Precedent does matter in the ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The issue of precedent has to do with affecting ministry policy. It would be interesting to see, out of the 1,700 or 1,800 appeals that happened in the province last year, whether the ministry was directly affected. I notice the deputy minister shaking his head. I know for a fact that appeals are not precedent-setting and that they don't necessarily affect policy.

There is one other thing pertaining to this particular case. The mother in this situation has just received handicapped status with the ministry, and this pertains directly to some policy of the ministry. Another issue, over and above the issue of judicial review, is that in this particular case, while the mother has received handicapped status, the fact of the matter is that should her husband instead have received that status, the family would automatically receive those medical benefits. Does the minister not consider that policy to have a sex bias in it?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know enough about the particular situation you're describing to be able to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: If it's a bias against one sex or the other, I would be surprised that it would go on for very long, given all of the attention that's paid to making sure that there is equality between the sexes. I'd have a hard time believing.... It's going to be checked on, but you say it's a common occurrence? We'll check on that one. Maybe you can ask us another question. We'll get some information on that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The other question that I want to ask the minister is on the issue of tribunals. I'm wondering how often the ministry sends lawyers to tribunals to represent the ministry's side.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Excuse me, I didn't hear the question. We were still talking about the last one.

Apparently it is right. If the husband is employable and the wife is handicapped, then she would get the medical coverage for herself but not for the whole family. If he was, because he would be considered responsible for caring for the family, the whole family would get it. Yes, I can see the point that you're making. Maybe we can take a look at that. I don't know, but I guess in that situation we have to ask: should the husband who's employable get the coverage too, because the wife is handicapped?

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That would be discrimination the other way, wouldn't it — reverse discrimination? Passing on benefits to women that they really don't.... You wonder if they deserve them. I guess we could look at that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: One of the best ways of establishing whether there is discrimination or bias is just switching the roles around. It becomes blatantly obvious that there is a bias in the policy, and I would hope that, using that as an example, the ministry would reconsider and take a look at that situation. I would argue, in this particular case, that if those benefits were made universal, if there's a good argument for the family having disability medical benefits because the husband is ruled as disabled, then there also may be the same argument to be made if the wife is. I would hope that any policy of the ministry would not create dependence, and in this particular situation that seems to be exactly what is happening.

[ Page 13118 ]

The other question I had for the minister pertains to the issue of tribunals. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us how often the ministry has lawyers represent the ministry in tribunals.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Very seldom, apparently.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm unclear as to whether we're doing that good of a job representing our constituents in Surrey, or whether it's just a little bit of a glitch in your system. I know of, as I said, two judicial reviews and an instance where the ministry has brought a lawyer over to sit on the ministry's behalf. I think I'd better go back and look at our volunteer advocates. We must be doing a real bang-up job over there.

I am wondering if the minister can let us know how much it costs to have a lawyer flown over to represent the ministry on tribunals. What is of concern is the amount of money that is being spent on legal apparatus to support the ministry's decisions. Why doesn't the ministry have confidence in being able to argue its own case with a community-based tribunal?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We do have confidence in it. I read you how many tribunals there were last year. There were 1, 700 tribunals last year, and 12 of them went for judicial reviews. So we do have a lot of confidence in them. As a matter of fact, 71 percent of them rule in favour of the applicant, and we accept those. Out of those 1,784, we accepted 1,772. Twelve were not accepted, and the reason they were not accepted was not that we had objection to a settlement being granted. We had objection to the tribunal ruling on what we considered to be outside of its mandate to go and make a ruling that was, in the opinion of the ministry, counter to the provisions of the act. You have to appreciate that the ministry cannot knowingly let decisions be made and actions be taken and decisions rendered that do not comply with the act. That is the only control we have over the whole social service system: that the act is there and that the service is provided according to the act.

If we allowed, for instance, people to make decisions in a tribunal that were outside of the act, then would we allow a social worker to go and make decisions outside the act?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please address the Chair.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It is not. It's a question of complying with the act and that's the only....

MS. SMALLWOOD: That's a specious argument. Nobody is arguing in favour of decisions made outside of the act. Quite the contrary I read the sections to you I specifically read the conduct of the tribunal. All of the arguments pertain directly to the act. I quoted you the sections, and I want to understand more clearly why, when there is a unanimous decision of a tribunal and the act was used, the ministry would decide on what appears at face value to be a pretty insignificant case — a pretty run-of-the-mill, straightforward situation — to take the tribunal's decision to a judicial review.

[7:30]

I asked the minister about the number of times the ministry sent lawyers to sit in on tribunals on behalf of the ministry rather than the ministry representing itself on the decision that it made as it pertains to a client. Instead the ministry hires a lawyer and sends him there to represent itself around a case dealing with a client's request.

I find it really interesting that most clients asking for support from income assistance in such a case would not qualify for legal aid, so they couldn't have a lawyer sit there with them. They've got to rely on volunteer support to sit and argue their case for them, and yet the ministry is flying in high-powered lawyers to argue their side. It seems a little bit questionable in such a situation, and it raises significant questions about the intent of such actions and how much it is costing the system — money that could be directly spent in support of some of those clients that are in significant need.

Let me change the subject just slightly, unless the minister wants to respond to that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The only response I will make to that is that regardless of whether there is legal representation or not, the purpose of the whole exercise is not to take away a benefit from anyone that they're entitled to. That is not the purpose. The purpose is to make sure that the decisions are fair and equitable to all. To be charitable to one group and not to another group is not justice in the true sense.

The member says that the applicant doesn't have legal representation. I'm told that they very often do have legal aid lawyers that represent the clients. Generally when there's a legal aid lawyer representing the clients there will be a lawyer representing the ministry.

MR. MICHAEL: I'd just like to ask a question of the minister as to the building of new buildings and the allocation of space. The first question is: who sets the standards? Is it the minister that sets the standards as to the number of square feet per employee, or is it the B.C. Buildings Corporation?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: BCBC and Treasury Board are the ones that set the standards for how much space is required for a number of employees. I suppose we determine how many employees we will have at that particular building, and then they decide what the space allocation will be.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The question I want to ask the minister has to do with privacy and access to information. I think it is a timely question, given the tabling of the government's exposure bill on access to information. Within the last session we heard members getting up to espouse the rights of citizens to information, always with the proviso that sensitive information

[ Page 13119 ]

should be protected — that the right of clients to some privacy was an important factor.

The struggle around information is ongoing with the Ministry of Social Services. It's very difficult to find that little window that really tells you what's going on. People that have been involved doing public policy development work around social issues have had this frustration for a long time. Just getting numbers without being in the slightest way intrusive into the privacy of clients.... Those simple numbers in a usable form have been consistently denied.

In the last number of years, with the federal government, we saw a situation where tax forms were found in the hallways where tax forms at some point in time.... This was just a matter of tax forms being transferred from one government agency to another. They were unaccounted for. There was a national outcry about the lack of security and the lack of assurances that people's personal tax information was being protected.

It has just come to my attention, Mr. Minister, that the Ministry of Social Services has contracted out the administration of welfare services dealing with eligibility of persons on welfare to dental benefits, and that computer tapes with identifiable information are regularly given to a private company for the administration of that service. Does the minister not have a problem with that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that at all. The people who work in the private sector have as much ability to be confidential as people who work in government.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Would you feel comfortable, Mr. Minister, if your tax information were processed by a private company?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: For the member's information, my tax information is processed by a private company. A chartered accountant does my tax, a girl types it, another may work on it. A number of people work on it. They are private companies. They're in the private sector. I have no concerns about that — no concerns whatsoever. The people who work with the information you're talking about understand the need for confidentiality, and it's honoured. There's no reason why they can't be as confidential as anyone in the public sector.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have two questions for the minister. Id like to know why he's using child labour to do his typing. Maybe the minister would like to answer that, and then we'll get back to the issue of confidentiality.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The question again, please. I didn't hear.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister just said that he has a girl do his typing. I wonder why he uses child labour to process his typing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Girls are under 18.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not sure whether she is under 18 or not. She doesn't work for me. She works for the accountant and does a lot. She a very fine young person.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister can explain, then. He says he doesn't hire this child himself. But I wonder if, as Minister of Social Services, he supports — and, as a business practice, does business with — a private sector company that hires child labour to do their clerical work.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member opposite is obviously having a great deal of fun because I used.... What word did I use?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Girl.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Excuse me. I guess it's considered very inappropriate by you. I hear some of the remarks that come from the other side of the House, and I'm not entirely impressed with those comments either. If that offends you, I apologize.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thank the minister for his apology. I think it was appropriate.

The issue we are dealing with is confidentiality. Very clearly, when their tax records were found in the hall of a government building, the people of Canada thought that their privacy had been violated. They were outraged. Whether or not this minister is outraged at the accessibility of his private tax records to others, I would suggest that when you are dealing with confidential issues such as clients' records, the clients of this province want assurances that their confidentiality is being respected. I believe that contracting out to a private firm to manage those records puts in jeopardy the very assurances they would be looking for.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Why don't we talk about the real issue? The real issue is that BCGEU members used to do this work, and they no longer do the work. That is what is upsetting the member opposite. You're not concerned about the confidentiality issue; you're concerned about who's doing the work. The fact is that the ministry saves $500,000 a year on having set the process up the way it is. It provides better service to the people involved than before. Any time we can bring savings to government and improve service by doing so, I want to assure you, Madam Member, that we will take every opportunity we have to do that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The government members on that side are all too happy to talk about other jurisdictions. I want to remind the member that in another jurisdiction a cabinet minister lost their post for not protecting the confidentiality of one of the clients they were responsible for. You took an oath, as did every single member of your cabinet, to protect the confidentiality of the clients you are responsible for. You have contracted that out. I want to know at this point

[ Page 13120 ]

whether or not this private sector group that now has the private records — the identifiable information about clients on welfare — also takes a confidentiality oath. I want some assurances that you, by this action, have not violated yours.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not concerned about the member's concerns. What I am concerned about is that the people of British Columbia are getting good-quality service, and getting better service than they had before. They're getting it at less money than they did before. There is no risk to them as to the confidentiality — no more risk than there was when it was done by other people. Those people are covered under the same requirements as the other people were when they did the work. So there is no risk involved, but there is a difference in the membership of the people doing the work. Yes, there is that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister didn't answer the question. I would like to ask it again. Do the people who are handling this confidential information take a confidentiality oath?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The confidentiality requirement is written into the contract when the service is provided.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The question is: do the people handling this material swear an oath?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, the people who are handling it don't take an oath. The people who handle a lot of confidential information do not take oaths. It's very common. People understand the requirement to be confidential.

MS. SMALLWOOD: When people give confidential information to government, they understand that the government is bound to keep that information confidential. Surely I don't have to remind the minister of a debate that happened in this House just a matter of weeks ago around the issue of the census and census workers who swear confidential oaths, as one more example of the responsibility and the role of government in dealing with that material.

We have a situation here where a minister, as a member of cabinet, has sworn to uphold the confidentiality of the clients he is responsible for, and by virtue of contracting out this information to a private sector group, I believe he has broken that oath of confidentiality I'm sure I don't have to remind the minister of the penalty for breaking his oath.

MS. MARZARI: Earlier today, Mr. Chairman, we discussed the government's attitude to building new child care centres. The minister made it quite clear that it is not within this government's policy framework to actively go out and encourage the building of new spaces for childcare. The minister made it quite clear that, as far as he was concerned, childcare was not a primary responsibility or a priority of his government.

[7:45]

I put forward the case that there are hundreds of thousands of parents in this province who are very concerned and worried. Very few of them have the consolation of knowing that their children are in safe, licensed spaces. Many of them have their children with relatives during the day while they're working or, as I said, with the nice woman down the block who may or may not be licensed. But the vast majority of parents really do go from pillar to post trying to maintain some quality and continuity of care for their kids.

The minister was quite clear on this issue though, despite the fact that this government has produced perhaps one of the best reports in Canada on the need for child care, with the best rationale and the beginning of a blueprint. The minister was quite adamant that child care will remain on the periphery of his ministerial mandate and left to the vagaries of the lottery process and some minimum subsidy for parents.

I just opened the paper a few minutes ago, Mr. Minister, and a child care centre slipped through quite inadvertently, quite by accident. There's a child care centre being opened by the minister for women and the mayor of Vancouver in Strathcona in Vancouver — a complete working child care centre. It has been a long time since I've seen the opening of a child care centre in a newspaper, and I can't really understand how it slipped through the screen that you've set up to prevent new spaces from opening, Mr. Minister.

You talked to me this morning or this afternoon about a new relationship around childcare with the Ministry of Women's Programs. It seems to me that this childcare centre has the Minister of Women's Programs standing in its portals as it opens and not the Minister of Social Services. My question is: could the minister describe to me exactly what the relationship is that's evolving between the Minister of Social Services and the Ministry of Women's Programs? Who's in charge here? Who is on first? Where does the buck stop?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I know that you can't say that someone has lied in this building, but you can say that someone didn't exactly tell the truth. That is apparent from the remarks that just came from the member opposite, who stood up in front of the television cameras and tried to make a case based on falsehood, hoping that somebody will believe it. She tried to put words in my mouth that I have never said and tried to attribute motives to government that it has never adopted and never supported. It has never been said that we were not supportive and not in favour of day care spaces. That's an absolute fabrication of the truth.

What I have said was that the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing was to meet the needs of people who require social assistance. Our role has been to subsidize those who are on social assistance and require a day care subsidy in order for them to get into the workforce. We provide the subsidies to help make that possible.

We provide a lot of other subsidies for people to make the transition from being on social assistance to becoming financially independent. One of the import-

[ Page 13121 ]

ant contributions that we make is to subsidize day care. We have not gone out with the purpose of building day cares. We have provided a subsidy for the user of it. We give that subsidy to the family, and they can pick and choose whichever day care they want to service them. They can go to a licensed day care, or they can go to another day care. They can do what they like. It's their choice because it's their child, and the choice should stay with them.

What you're talking about in the paper is that the Minister of Women's Programs has the responsibility for women's programs and families, which was added to it, and one of the specific tasks that was given to that ministry was to look at the requirements of day care. A task force met, and you yourself commented upon how good a report it was. There were funds provided for the implementation of the recommendations of that task force, and those have been carried out. The Minister of Women's Programs is certainly interested in providing day care spaces and having new day care specialists provided. That ministry is also part of this government, but it is not the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, which is subsidizing the people on social assistance.

MS. MARZARI: Let's get closer to this. In British Columbia, only 1 percent of the amount given to child care is devoted to capital costs of building new spaces, In Alberta it's 55 percent; in Saskatchewan it's 12 percent; in Manitoba it's 49 percent; in Northwest Territories it's 40 percent; in New Brunswick it's 20 percent. This province puts the least number of dollars into actually creating new spaces. That is to say, it puts the least number of dollars of any jurisdiction in Canada into actually resolving the need that's out there, not for carte blanche universal day care, but for child care that parents pay for and ask to be topped up a little bit when they can't afford the full market costs of day care. Are you're telling me that the Ministry of Social Services, which has traditionally in this province run the social services and supposedly been in charge of day care, is now abrogating its responsibility in day care and that the women's ministry is taking over this function? Is that what you're telling me? Because what you're telling me is that the women's ministry is opening up new day care spaces with a paltry few million dollars, while you, with a big chunk of the provincial budget, are saying you don't want to deal with anything other than subsidies for parents on welfare.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member continues to argue the same line, which isn't right. We are not abrogating our responsibility. Our responsibility is to provide assistance to those people on social assistance who require day care service. We don't go out and provide other services to people not on social assistance, so why would we pick up the responsibility of providing day care for others not on social assistance? We don't do it in other services. People look after themselves. There's a point in society where people are able to care for themselves, and as I said before, I believe the intervention of government should be limited to where it's needed.

I recognize that there's a requirement for more day care spaces in the province than we have. The government recognizes that, and there's an effort to encourage the development of additional day care spaces. I personally don't think that should be the responsibility of the province alone, but I don't disagree that the province may very well assist with it. Communities have a responsibility, employers have a responsibility and the people who utilize day care facilities have a responsibility.

It's a simply a matter that in this particular ministry we are not changing our role. In fact, our role for providing a support for day care is increasing, and our budget has increased substantially year after year. So there can be no question about our commitment to providing support for day care.

We're talking about building new day care spaces, and the Minister of Women's Programs is taking the lead at that, because that involves ministries outside the Ministry of Social Services — and even outside the Ministry of Women's Programs. There are other ministries concerned with the requirement for day care spaces.

MS. MARZARI: The minister has just convicted himself of disinterest in the issue. The minister is actually dead wrong. The ministry does provide subsidies and has eligibility criteria for people not on welfare. There are many parents in this province who are not on welfare but who are working poor and qualify for your subsidies. You're not just dealing with welfare recipients. But if you're telling me, Mr. Minister, that you are now going to say that you're shifting yourself right out of the day care field and you're going to put subsidies for people not on welfare into another ministry, I wish you'd tell the House now. Because you deal with people right now who are not necessarily on welfare, who are approaching you daily as working poor or even as middle-class parents, to see if they can get some relief from day care rates, I think the minister should sort this out.

The minister has also stated that it's not his ministry's responsibility to go to the cities and the towns and the parents and start building the new spaces. In fact, this new centre that's opened in Strathcona looks like there was full involvement with the city of Vancouver.

What you're saying is that a brand-new, upstart ministry has basically, with a tiny bit of money, taken the ball and run with it, and is just running away from the Ministry of Social Services. What you're telling me is that this ministry of yours has basically spent years sitting on the child care situation, knowing that there is a growing problem, yet not doing anything about it; and now we've got a few new spaces which get grand coverage in the newspapers, for 25 new spaces, and it's a big deal. I have to say that this is after years and years of complete inaction.

Let me give you another test, Mr. Minister. Granny Y's, which is run by the YWCA, is one of the few centres in Vancouver right now that take in infants. In fact, in the whole province, I believe, there are less

[ Page 13122 ]

than 200 infant spaces in child care. Granny Y's opened as an emergency child care centre, but had such difficulty keeping its doors open, because of the lack of provincial interest in giving it an operating grant to see it through its month-end cash flow problem, that it turned itself into an infant care centre.

At present the centre has fallen from 20 children to nine, not because there is not need — because there is a huge need for infant child care, most particularly in the downtown area of the city, as mothers come in to work downtown — but because the fees to cover the costs of this child care centre are $1,050 per month, which is not out of line with what the other infant spaces are. Other spaces are generally up there around the $900 mark to have an infant, zero to three, in care. The subsidy rate for an infant is $468. The parent — I'm talking about a woman who has got a secretarial job, one of the so-called "girls" the minister talked about, taking home perhaps $1,500 a month — is not going to be able to afford the difference between $468, which is what you might offer her on full subsidy, and $1,050.

Consequently a beautiful, caring, loving facility called Granny Y's, which everybody in the city of Vancouver knows about, is going down the tubes. It's been at death's door now for six months. Parents have been asking the ministry for six months: save this centre, as a good, solid infant centre, serving the needs of parents who can bring their kids into town. All this centre requires is an operating grant to see it through, so that it can balance its books every month and keep its doors open. Just $200 a month per child would do it. That is what is required to keep Granny Y's open and functioning for the women who work in downtown Vancouver, from all over the region.

It's a tough question, because the minister doesn't particularly like new spaces and wants to restrict his role, but you are the ministry that presently has the bucks. The buck does stop with you, because you are the ministry that has the $50 million to put into child care subsidies. Is the minister prepared to keep the Granny Y's centre open by offering it, and ensuring that it gets, the operating capital it needs to stay open for infant care and for the women who work downtown?

[8:00]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The question of how much we will subsidize in relation to infant care is something that is under review. We recognize the cost that's associated with caring for infants. I couldn't help but be impressed when the member opposite said it cost over $1,000 and the government only pays $450 a month for an infant. I think, if I remember correctly, that a child going to school costs the Ministry of Education about $5, 700 a year per student, so we now have the cost of an infant far exceeding the cost of a child going to school. It is a major undertaking for government.

We are reviewing the amount of money that will be allotted for infant day care, and are looking at the subsidy we pay now and whether that should be increased. We will not be paying it, though, as an operating grant to the facility. If we decide to increase it, we will increase it to the user. We will subsidize the user and not be paying it as an operating grant, unless there's a complete change in policy and we get into the operation of day care centres ourselves. It's not what we have been proposing to do.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MS. MARZARI: The minister may not agree with my technique of keeping the doors open, but is he, in effect, saying that Granny Y's is not going to go down the tubes — that the facility is going to remain open and that he's prepared to make that commitment here in this House?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, I am certainly not prepared to make that commitment in the House.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister aware that the city of Vancouver is ready and willing to sit down with his ministry to discuss possible ways of keeping those doors open? Is the minister prepared to use the good offices of his staff and ministry to do what a few minutes ago he said he didn't really want to do, which is to deal with other levels of government and do all that outreach work that might get him entangled with creating new spaces? You wanted the women's ministry to take care of that, but are you, as the place where the buck stops, prepared to sit down with the city of Vancouver and start working out a deal to keep the doors open at Granny Y's?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We sit down on a regular basis with many different levels and ministries of government to coordinate our services with their services. I have no reluctance to sit down with the city of Vancouver to talk about this. We can sit down and talk about it. I'm not making you any commitment here tonight in this House that we are going to provide the funding that you suggest is required in order to keep the facility open. We'll discuss it with the city of Vancouver and make the decision then.

MS. MARZARI: Then I do have the minister's commitment that he's ready to sit down with the city of Vancouver to discuss this centre. I've been on the receiving end of phone calls and briefs for six months, and I'm sure the minister has as well. To this point I don't know if the minister has actually sat down with the city. I have not yet talked to Rita Chudnovsky on the issue — the children's advocate for the city — or to Penny Coates, who is now working on a child care policy for the city, but is the minister saying that he is prepared to sit down and work out some kind of deal so that Granny Y's will stay open?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: You may have had a lot of correspondence on this facility, but I haven't had any requests that I'm aware of from anybody to sit down and discuss it with them. I certainly don't ever recall seeing a letter that made reference to it. If they write to you often, there is perhaps another reason why they do that, but we have not been the recipients of that approach. When we receive a request to do that, we

[ Page 13123 ]

will respond as we always do. If there's a problem and we can be of assistance, we'll sit down and talk about it. On the basis of the information there, we will make a decision.

MS. MARZARI: I think we're breaking new ground. The concept of working with the city, of partnership, is an excellent one that we should be pursuing wherever we go on child care. The minister said that no one level of government should be completely responsible. He's absolutely right. There is absolutely no reason why a ministry should be barricading itself behind antiquated policies and not talking to everybody. You could be talking to the parents, to the municipalities.... Every town, regional district and school board in this province is ready — or should be ready — to sit down and discuss some kind of cost-sharing arrangement to make sure that schoolrooms and portables are available on schoolyards and that churches are available as they are now. The downtown business sector is almost ready if we can provide the zoning incentives required to encourage child care downtown. The unions are prepared to start talking about providing and paying, on a partnership basis, for building, controlling and running child care. There is literally a mountain of opportunity out there, Mr. Minister.

What I see going on here, though, is a mandate tug-of-war between you and the new Ministry of Women's Programs. I think there's some difficulty there from what I can detect, when one minister is out opening centres and the other minister isn't really aware of what's going on. There seems to be some confusion here in terms of who is doing what with what kind of money for whom, and I hope that this does not adversely affect the development of child care policy in this province.

The minister may want to talk about that further with the partner in this enterprise, the minister for women, who I gather has $12.1 million this year to do something with. I fear, however, because of the closure of this debate on estimates, that we're not going to find out what that $12.1 million is actually for, as we end up being pushed out of this House long before our job is done. We're probably going to end up waiting until an election campaign to find out how your responsibilities intersect or connect with the minister responsible for women.

Let me move on for one brief moment, then, to another area that your ministry has been involved with for the last five years. That has been, first of all, the denial — not that you were there, Mr. Minister, but ministers in your place — that hungry children existed and the gradual recognition that hungry children existed, the denial that hot lunches would be provided and then the suggestion that perhaps they might be provided and then a wholehearted embracing of providing hot lunches by the new interim Premier. Now the whole issue seems to have disappeared in a cloud of smoke. The hot lunches seem to have disappeared in a cloud of smoke. What has happened to the hot lunch program that everyone in this province has become a part of — this story of hot lunches that has dominated our front pages for five years and has now been promised? Is the hot lunch program actually going to be provided from your ministry?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the member opposite has some difficulty in deciding which responsibilities belong with which minister. If that's the case, maybe we will have to spend some extra time to help the member through that process.

For those of us on this side of the House, there is no difficulty whatsoever. I work with the Minister of Women's Programs on several of these initiatives, because they involve both the ministries and are services that are provided by Social Services and enhanced by the involvement of the Ministry of Women's Programs — paying special attention to the requirements of specific issues. So we're not confused, and there's no difficulty in determining where the responsibilities are.

As far as day care is concerned, I think the Ministry of Social Services and Housing has met its responsibility well. We have in excess of $52 million in the budget to subsidize day care for working people with low incomes and for recipients of social assistance. So we are taking care of the needs of those people and providing them with assistance. We do not cut them off. We provide the funds that are required.

If you will remember, when we did the estimates to complete last year's budget, we in fact had an overrun on the amount of money that was spent on day care. But that was because the demand was higher than what we had anticipated, and we were pleased to provide that assistance and extra support. We didn't say: "We're out of money. You don't get any support." We provided it. That's the way we treat it.

But the responsibility for looking at the issue of day care, what is required within the province and how best to address the problem was done by a task force that was established by the Minister of Women's Programs. That report is being reviewed now by her ministry, my ministry and those who are concerned with the development and implementation of the program. There is money that was allowed in the budget over a three-year cycle — $55 million I believe it was — to provide funding to begin implementing the recommendations of that task force. I think the process has worked very well. I think it has been a very responsible program.

You asked about the lunch program for schools, the need for it and how it should be addressed. What should be provided and how it should be delivered was also given specifically to the Minister of Women's Programs to come forward with a recommendation. It is not within the mandate of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. It was specifically given by the Premier to the Minister of Women's Programs as an extraordinary issue that needed to be dealt with.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I want to make some general statements about how we see the state of housing in the province. I was somewhat surprised this afternoon to learn that the provincial government had very little knowledge of one of the major documents

[ Page 13124 ]

that has been done by local government in the last ten years, or that it not had done any measures to look at implementation of serious recommendations by local government.

Mr. Chairman, because of closure coming imminently on this important estimate, this is the last time that housing will be the subject of a broad-ranging debate in this parliament. I want to talk about what this government's going to be remembered for in housing. I'll tell you that the first thing they'll be remembered for is the misleading advertising of nonexistent programs. That's the number one issue they'll be remembered for: style but scant substance. Whether you're an aspiring homeowner or renter, homeless or a manufactured-home owner, nothing has changed since 1986.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll deal with the last five years, and my colleague can deal with the years before that if he so desires.

In general terms, where the government could have done something to help they've either done nothing or they were totally ineffective in what they attempted. Let me give you a little history. If the minister wishes to interrupt and disagree, please let me know at any time. This government is fond of saying that they have been government for 37 of the last 40 years. Especially where housing is concerned, they do not take responsibility for the problems they will leave behind.

In terms of renters, a major part of our population in the province of British Columbia.... Let's look at the record. When this government started out in 1986, 44 percent of all renters were spending over 30 percent of their household income on shelter. That was 173,595 households, or 451,000 British Columbians.

[8:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: On a point of order. I would just like your view, Mr. Chairman. Is it appropriate that the member opposite comes in during my estimates and begins to read a prepared speech?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can only suggest that all members stay with the details that are contained within vote 52, the minister's office.

MR. BLENCOE: It's incumbent on this side to give a detailed analysis of what the government has and hasn't done, because they're clearly incapable of taking care of it themselves. I'm making a statement on the state of housing in the province of British Columbia. If the minister wishes to disagree with me or get up, please indicate at any time. I would be quite prepared to sit down.

If you're spending over 30 percent on shelter — housing — certain things follow from that. You cannot save a down payment on a home of your own. You cannot get a bank to give you a mortgage. You're a captive consumer forced to pay whatever the landlord sees fit, because there are very few alternatives. In the last few years we've seen very little done in the area of supply or vacancy rate. Until you get vacancy rates up to 3 percent there's not enough choice in the market for the tenant facing large rent hikes to move.

At the same time, the province has refused to limit the developers' ability to demolish rental housing. Mr. Chairman, 2,000 affordable homes in greater Vancouver disappeared in 1989. The government decided to take no action.

In 1986 over 100,000 homeowners were forced to pay out more than 30 percent of their income for shelter. House prices have escalated sharply since then. Vancouver east-side prices are up 66 percent over five years ago. Victoria is up 70 percent. Mr. Mulroney's high interest rate policies, supported by this government, have compounded that problem.

Last year average Vancouver homebuyers were forced to pay 67 percent of their income for shelter. This year it's down to 56 percent. The government's view of all this is that not much is needed to be done, because the market would provide the housing. The fact that about 30 percent of all sales in Vancouver during 1989 were for speculation has been of no discernible concern to the government.

What about this minister's record, Mr. Chairman? The present minister has been in the portfolio for over a year. When he was appointed, he inherited the housing action plan announced in the 1989 budget, which proclaimed a $1 billion provincial housing program. The government was so proud of that program that they rushed a serious of commercials onto our television screens. Unfortunately, the $1 billion figure contained nearly half for people on GAIN and $418 million for homeowners to reduce their property taxes. When it came down to direct dollars for housing construction, there wasn't very much. Very little for social housing, shelter aid for elderly renters, the renters' tax reduction, the rental supply program, seniors' housing, mortgage assistance and property purchase tax relief. Very little in that budget.

We found out that most of that action plan, as we discovered in this latest budget.... Much of what they say they're going to do turns out to be just smoke and mirrors and propaganda.

The property purchase tax, Mr. Chairman, annually generates between $215 million and $300 million for the treasury. That pays for all the real housing programs and leaves at least $100 million for other government purposes. This minister has taken us from the 1989 housing action plan to the 1991 study of affordable housing announced in the budget — from an action plan that wasn't an action plan to another study on housing. After five years and a well-documented problem, the issue here is the political will of the government to do what is practical.

When this minister was sworn in, he should have found at least two major things in his in-basket.

First, I've already mentioned today the 18-point proposal from the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The municipalities suggested that they have available a range of options to empower them to do what is best for their areas in providing affordable housing. No action at all on something from local government. This government keeps hammering local government for no

[ Page 13125 ]

action, and here was their document asking the provincial government to help them with affordable housing.

There was the 11-point strategy for affordable home-ownership from the Urban Development Institute. We see no measures, action, proposals or policies as a result of that.

The only item from the 29 points that the government moved on was the ending of discrimination against families in rental housing. The government botched that, as owners of adult-only condominiums soon found out. GAIN recipients know that discrimination based on source of income is still permitted by this government.

The government claims to have a record on consultation second to none. People are contacting us with their good ideas for housing several times a week, so I'd like the government to know I agree with their claim: never has so much constructive advice been given by so many to so few for such a scant result. The talent is there; the studies have been done; the advice has been given; and this government — I suspect because of its own political agenda and preoccupation — has not been able to take any of that advice. The major reason is that this government lacks the political will to do better. Its inability to govern has been impaired by its own continuing leadership problems. Contrary to what we see here....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to you, we're addressing vote 52. This member is making a speech that may not even be passable in throne speech debate. He's completely out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the second member for Victoria to continue, and keep in mind the restrictions as they apply to staying on the discussion appropriate to vote 52.

MR. BLENCOE: I will continue, Mr. Chairman. Contrary to what we see here with this government, there is an arm of government that has a broad-ranging brief to offer advice and analysis to cabinet. That is the group led by Mr. Peter Stobie in the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I know B.C. Housing gets lots of suggestions, and the reason they do not come forward is political. The government doesn't really want to know the solutions. Many suggestions have been offered by organizations with a lot of expertise in housing. If the government knew what the problems were, perhaps more effort would be put into solving them.

Over the last two or three years, when we look at all the various housing programs that were announced, this government has failed British Columbians in housing with their hands-off approach. No matter whether you rent, want to buy, own a manufactured home or have no home at all, this government has failed. Here's how they failed. For renters, the government has failed: a year ago the rental supply program was inadequate to keep up with the projected population growth. The program was supposed to deliver nearly 7, 700 affordable homes for rent; it's down to less than 6,500. Of these only 1,286 — 16 percent of the original program — are actually being built. As of June 17 nearly 4,000 still waiting for approvals couldn't be found. I've asked the minister for the addresses, and they don't exist.

The government likes to point the finger at the municipalities, Mr. Chairman. We've heard that over and over again from past ministers. But had those municipalities been able to participate in regional planning, the rental supply program could have been a roaring success. It was the government that eliminated regional planning, and it's the government that fails to act on municipal concerns.

The government abolished the rentalsman in 1983; the theory was that the market will provide. Since this government was elected, there has not been a vacancy rate in Vancouver or Victoria approaching 3 percent, which we define as being a reasonable rate.

This government has an attitude problem toward the poor. This ministry recently sent out a letter — this has already been covered by some of my colleagues — to anyone who has been on GAIN for part of the last year, telling them to get off welfare. Several of these recipients were struggling to get along, but the government did not care. The number of seniors being helped by SAFER is down by 20 percent since 1989. The government will claim that incomes have gone up. But one thing that has not gone up are the rent limits. In 1989 the rent limits got adjusted for the first time in the eighties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. CLARK: I was listening intently to the member for Victoria detailing a litany of housing promises broken by this administration, and he was only a quarter of the way through. I know he's got hours more of speech to give with respect to this administration's sorry record on housing.

MR. BLENCOE: I know the government doesn't like to hear this, because they talk about all the help they give to seniors. I want every senior in British Columbia to know that since 1989 there has been a drop by 20 percent of those being helped by SAFER. Where is the commitment to seniors that this government talks about? Targeting SAFER funds depends on regular increases in the rent limits. But with a revolving-door cabinet, it's easy for ministers to forget that, and it certainly has been easy to forget the seniors. I haven't seen any major support in terms of the SAFER program or expansion of that program.

How about homeowners, Mr. Chairman? That's something this government is always concerned about and is always saying they want to support. The main thing that has changed since the last recession is that the interest rates are a bit lower. The Royal Bank affordability index for Vancouver is running at an excessively high 56 percent, meaning that the households need to pay out 56 percent of their wages on shelter. It is becoming very clear that the chances of first-time homebuyers getting into the market are

[ Page 13126 ]

extremely poor. And now, at this last minute, we hear from the government that they're concerned about some of these homeowner issues.

The interim Premier said today that, as a candidate, she might consider relieving property purchase taxes for first-time buyers — as a candidate, not as part of the government. Most of the people today getting into the housing market are doing so because they can seize the opportunity to build some equity that the temporary relatively low interest rates provide. They take the risk that when they come to renew and interest rates are at the top of the cycle, they will be able to deal with that. But most homebuyers are not first-time buyers; they are trading up. The market, as the minister pointed out yesterday, is really productive. But is the industry building enough of the right kind of housing? And if not, what should be done about that? The best the government could do was announce another study. It was announced in the budget. They have ignored the pragmatic proposals from the UBCM and the Urban Development Institute.

[8:30]

What about manufactured-home owners, a group that's often overlooked and not dealt with? The manufactured-home owners have been let down by this government. The group has been particularly badly treated because the government has listened to the park owners and put their interests far ahead of the manufactured-home owner.

The government is well aware that there is such a shortage of manufactured-home sites that a person losing a pad in Surrey to the SkyTrain extension would be lucky to find an alternative site this side of Hope. It is very expensive to move a home, and the $2,400 allowed by government policy is hopelessly unrealistic. The manufactured-home owners told the government that up to $10,000 was not uncommon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm not sure whether you're within the guidelines of vote 52 at the present time, and I would ask you to be more specific in terms of those things contained in vote 52.

MR. BLENCOE: This government is stale and out of touch on housing and every other issue. They forget that in many instances the value of the manufactured home is greater than the land the home sits on, but the balance of the government's policy is all in favour of the landowner and against the interests of the manufactured-home owner.

Housing, like social services, is one of those areas where public demand is virtually infinite, and the easy position for a member in opposition is to ask for more In some instances we have asked for more in terms of more affordable housing, and we will continue to ask for that on behalf of British Columbians. But in most examples this government has done so much of nothing that a plan of any kind would be welcome if we could find it.

There is no housing policy in British Columbia There is no strategy. There is, for all intents and purposes, no leader of the B.C. Housing Management Commission — he's moved south.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Point of order. This is clearly going against the rules of debate in this House — it's irrelevance and repetition in debate. It's probably against the United Nations Charter in that it's cruel and unusual punishment, so would you please ask this member to get a new speechwriter or do something so that he is back in order again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would again ask the member to confine his statements in relation to vote 52.

MR. BLENCOE: I think it's important to go over the sad record of this government in housing, because we have been bombarded by the news, by the propaganda experts and all the various things they have done in housing. It's quite clear that it's not there, and we've shown that.

A plan or strategy for developing housing in the province would be welcome — a plan that would produce new low-cost housing and protect the tenants who are potential victims of an unresponsive rental market and conserve existing stock by protecting it from conversion, demolition and replacement. It is a policy and a plan that would rehabilitate old houses or derelict motels by bringing them up to code, and we can expand those for affordable housing. It would provide financing incentives of the kind recommended by the UBCM. A plan, a strategy. All the talent, all the programs are there, but we haven't got a government that's willing to admit that housing is a priority in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the government has had five years in this parliament to achieve some of that, and today I found they hadn't even done the basic homework on some of the documents that have been produced in the last year or so.

But if you ask if the government is doing what it can to alleviate the worst problems, the answer wherever you look — be it a renter, a manufactured homeowner or the homeless — is a resounding no. I would once again urge the government to take a look at the programs that we have suggested on this side: the homeowner programs, the starter programs, the rental programs, the protection for tenants, the second mortgages and the renovation grants — issue after issue that we have developed in communication with those in the housing industry.

There are the suggestions and the ideas. All we have to do, Mr. Chairman, is convince this government that housing is a priority, that people want government to take action. That's all we're asking for on this side of the House.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In the previous debate the minister indicated that there was a caseload increase expected in welfare. If I recall correctly, the numbers are something like 9 percent predicted for this year. I'm wondering if the minister can give us some information on the impact of the Ul changes federally on the predicted increase of that caseload. And I wonder if the minister, in addition to that, can provide some information about the work that his ministry has been doing

[ Page 13127 ]

with the federal government on training and job re-entry.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, we should recognize the speechwriter for the effort in preparing a document that would impress the television viewers. It was divorced from the truth but nevertheless trying to be dramatic and effective, hopefully to influence a few votes. You made such an effort for it; you nearly choked a couple of times trying to say it. It was no wonder because the words coming out had no relation to reality. They had no relation to truth, and I guess they were hard to say. Nevertheless, you got them out. Your speech writer did the best he or she could under the circumstances.

When it comes to NDP policy, there isn't much for a speech writer to work with. There's nothing but down, down, down. We can see it in my estimates, which have been going on now for about 18 hours. We talk about spending money better, but if we spent all the money that you people have advocated across the way, this ministry would have a budget not of nearly $2 billion, but probably close to $4 billion, because everything we do is not enough. We should spend more.

The people of British Columbia can now take this as evidence that if the NDP were ever to form a government in this province, we would be headed down the road of Ontario. We would have a $10 billion deficit, the same as that province does. The debt of that province will double in the next four years. The speech the member made was a valiant attempt, but the people of British Columbia will not be fooled.

The answer to the question on the effect Ul has on the GAIN program.... You know, I can repeat it for you again. If you want to go and look at the Blues, you'll find that I have mentioned it three or four times in these estimates. When the estimates reach closure tonight, I hope no one objects and says that they haven't had an opportunity to ask questions, because they've asked the same question at least three or four times.

The changes in UIC last year cost this ministry $45 million. That $45 million was all from UI; it came from the UI changes. Part of it was on account of the change in the regulations, which required a longer time before people could get onto unemployment insurance. We will also see another impact of it when many people start coming off unemployment insurance, because they're not allowed to be on as long. I think it's 35 weeks; it used to be 52. I'm only going by memory on that, but I think that's the number. So we get it at the front end because it takes longer for people to qualify, we get it at the other end because they get assistance for a shorter period of time, and they come again to Social Services for help.

The other area that cost us a lot of money in relation to unemployment insurance was the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Commission was not set up to handle the caseload that came to them when the economy began to turn down. They had a horrendous backlog of applications before them. They did not get them processed, and the delay in processing cost us millions of dollars as well. We approached the federal government, talked to them about our concern and told them that they had to do something about it, because those people were entitled to unemployment insurance and were not getting it because they couldn't provide the processing of the applications.

They have made improvements in that, but the changes in unemployment insurance will continue to hit this province and other provinces very dramatically — particularly British Columbia. The extent that it will impact upon us will depend upon the state of the economy and how many people are unemployed. When people are unemployed, then, of course, we will be affected. So it's in relation to the employment levels.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I know the minister was slightly preoccupied with a response he wanted to give to the previous speaker, but he shouldn't take that kind of crankiness out on my questions. The fact of the matter is that I asked the minister not solely about the direct dollar impact of the Ul changes on income assistance caseloads; I also asked the minister what he's doing about it with the federal government.

What I asked the minister to refer to in particular is some of the work the federal government has done on programs for social assistance recipients as they relate to job re-entry and retraining. I have a copy in my hand of a task force report. The symposium that developed the task force took place in December '89. The report is entitled Report of the Task Force on Programs for Social Assistance Recipients. It dealt with the money that was allocated when the UI changes came into place, specifically for training and retraining. I'd like the minister to make a comment on that report. Is the province taking advantage of that money available for retraining? Have you supported the recommendations coming out of that task force on employment for social assistance recipients? We're looking for real options to get people back into the work force rather than just complaining about the increase. We're looking for options to provide people to really change the reality they are facing. If the minister's not familiar, we can go through it recommendation by recommendation.

[8:45]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The minister is familiar. We're aware that Employment and Immigration Canada has a job training program. We participate in that. In 1991-92 that program will involve about 9,500 projected.... The projected impact of UIC will cost $67 million. We have worked with Employment and Immigration Canada regarding job training. We have made submissions to them that they have to do more — along with other provinces — about assisting people on unemployment insurance to train and get employment. They are not keeping these people on unemployment insurance for the length of time.... Of course, they become the responsibility of the province.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says that he's familiar, but the answer doesn't reflect that. Let's go through the recommendations. This doesn't deal with people on UI; it deals with income assistance recipi-

[ Page 13128 ]

ents. The report deals with the barriers to employment that income assistance recipients face.

The first recommendation deals with linkages between programs. Social assistance clients are served by municipalities and provincial bureaucracies. The programs and delivery mechanisms make it difficult for individuals to find their way through the maze of options. Equally the lack of linkages makes it almost impossible for social assistance recipient trainees to progress smoothly through the series of training programs from pre-employment training to areas such as literacy, English as a second language, life-skills training and specific employment training. With this coordination among various levels of program givers, participants find their training plans at best delayed, at worst frustrated altogether.

This report is something that your ministry should be dealing with and designing its own programs; not looking at another level of government to do it through UI, but looking at designing your own job re-entry programs and employment opportunities for income assistance recipients. There's been excellent research done in this report that can begin to deal with the real problems that people on income assistance face. The recommendations go on dealing with those practical needs.

The task force believes that all reforms made to Canada's training system for social assistance recipients should include a clear commitment to the use of community-oriented, client-centred programs, flexibility in program design, voluntary participation on the part of participants and integration of recipients into mainstream training and employment programs.

We've talked throughout the estimates about the design of the ministry's programs, about ensuring that the goals of a number of programs that the ministry is responsible for are effective, that the money is well spent and that we're reaching some goals. It's not good enough for the minister to complain that because of the policies of another government, we are facing an increase in the caseloads.

The work that this particular task force did offers provinces an alternative for alleviating some of the direct relationships of unemployment. The minister says he's familiar, so I'm hoping to hear some comment about the thinking done in the ministry — and it is my hope — in support of this report and some reflection on the programs to address some of these and, as I said, to go on and deal specifically with more of the recommendations. I see the minister has another note. Perhaps he'd like to comment.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know what the member is wanting me to say. In the Ministry of Social Services we have a very detailed program for helping social assistance recipients return to the job market. It's a program that covers many facets such as education, job training and assistance in many ways. I'm not going to stand here and outline all the things that are done in the ministry to help people make the transition. It is an extensive program, costing something like $28 million a year through this ministry. That's in addition to any Ul programs or federal government programs. This is just the provincial one, and $28 million is spent for the sole purpose of assisting people to make that transition.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister seems reluctant to deal with the work of this federal committee. At the same time, he says that he's familiar with it.

Can I ask specifically whether the programs that your ministry has in place deal with coordinating the linkages between educational opportunities for social assistance recipients; whether they deal specifically with the first issue that I raised, the smooth progress through a series of training programs, from pre-employment to areas such as literacy, English as a second language, life skills training and specific employment training.

What I hear from people who have taken advantage of the ministry's programs is quite the contrary: there are a number of disjointed opportunities out there. As one example, one of the community workers raised the fact with me that there is no literacy evaluation done when a client walks into the office. Whether or not a person is even able to fill out an application without significant assistance would be one good indicator that the ministry should be looking at some access to literacy training and basic skills development to give that person an opportunity.

I don't want to give the impression that I think education and job training is the panacea here. There are a lot of reasons why people are poor in this province. This is just one small aspect of it that deserves attention.

I'm looking for some indication from the minister that the increased caseload that you're talking about.... The people of this province should have some assurances that you're doing everything possible to take advantage of the resources at other levels of government, that you're doing everything possible and are plugged into the strategies as laid out in the task force. This task force was one of seven set up by the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre as part of the Department of Employment and Immigration's consultation exercise on the labour force development strategy announced in April 1989.

I'm hoping to see some real carry-through. We've got lots of promises federally that that carry-through and coordination with the federal government would happen with their policies of hands-off. Some of the people who found themselves unemployed because of federal policies are actually being followed through, and the provinces, in turn, are systematically looking at resources to ensure employment.

The third recommendation of the report was that federal, provincial and territorial governments must reaffirm their commitment to the principle of full employment and to encouraging the creation of quality jobs, recognizing that training is not a panacea for unemployment. The task force urges government to make some attempt to match training programs with forecasts of quality jobs available to the labour market.

We started off the ministry's estimates asking the minister what work he does with other strategic planning ministries of this government to deal with those very issues: full employment, creation of quality

[ Page 13129 ]

jobs and training and employment strategies for this province. Because very clearly, unless that work is being done by this minister, people will continue to be poor and to work six months out of the year and end up back on unemployment. We're looking for some real leadership from this minister and his government.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member opposite that she has that. We are very familiar with the program she talks about. This program has $28 million from the provincial government, matched by $28 million from the federal government. So $56 million is spent on this particular program. British Columbia was the first province in Canada to sign the agreement with the federal government. This program is monitored very carefully to see that we do fit in with other programs. It involves Canada Employment and Advanced Education, Training and Technology; and Social Services and Housing oversees it to ensure that clients have access to all the programs. If anything, we are ahead of the rest of Canada with the implementation of the program the member talks about.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I don't know how much value there is in going through this report, because I've heard nothing from the minister to indicate that there is any ongoing work with Employment and Immigration federally. I'm not even sure if anything has been done by the federal government, given the minister's comments after this report was tabled. I think that that's a real shame, because many of the answers that people are looking for may seem complicated in the way the minister presents it, but when you deal with the practical needs of people, it becomes pretty clear the sorts of support that governments can give people.

The reality, Mr. Minister, is that the real incomes of families within your jurisdiction are declining. The median family income in this province has not grown since 1979. The value of minimum wage has shrunk dramatically. Two spouses at minimum wage now earn 92 percent of the poverty line for a family of three; in 1975 one worker on minimum wage earned 81 percent of the poverty line for the same family. That's a real indicator of what is happening in this province with this government's policies — with subsequent Social Credit policy. Their attitude, not only in this ministry but in economic development ministries, says: hands off; shovel the tax dollars into the pockets of the private sector, into the pockets of their friends, with absolutely no strings attached, with no accountability to the taxpayers as to how their tax money is being spent, with absolutely no goals in mind for achieving a better life for the people of this province.

[9:00]

We see it with job re-entry and employment opportunities — no follow-through. We see it with a myriad of community programs that we have talked about extensively, with no follow-through as to enforcement and standards to ensure that the responsibility of the government is lived up to.

Mr. Minister, we've got something like half an hour to deal with a number of very important issues in this ministry, one of the three biggest ministries of the government. Instead of dealing with those issues seriously, instead of dealing with what happens to a woman's income when a family separates, the fact that being a single parent responsible for raising children just about ensures poverty in this province.... We've talked about housing issues, and the only mention in the budget of housing for the mentally ill is a promise that at least four years down the road, once the Riverview and Woodlands sites are developed, the money from that development will go into a fund to provide housing for the mentally ill.

People that are working in the community now, trying to provide housing or support for the mentally ill, or staff in your own ministry... I hear repeatedly from the front-line workers in the Ministry of Social Services that they're getting to the point where they are frightened to do their job because of the deinstitutionalization that has gone on, because of the lack of resources in the communities for the number of people that come into Social Services offices looking for support who are disoriented, confused and angry — angry at the situation they find themselves in., And who do they take it out on? They don't take it out on you, Mr. Minister, because all too often they don't have either the skills or the ability to recognize that it's not the person across the counter, that social worker or that financial aid worker, but indeed the policies of this government that are to blame as they impact on the lives of those people.

For this ministry now to talk about the sale of lands and a legacy fund to be set up to house these people is nothing short of irresponsible. There is absolutely no way any right-minded person would support the deinstitutionalizing of people who are so vulnerable in our society without assuring the appropriate support and housing in communities. Very clearly, anyone in this province can see by the number of headline stories we have that this government has failed miserably to service the people it is responsible for.

There are a number of issues we need to deal with, as I said. I want to go back a little bit and talk about some of the issues of sexual abuse as they pertain to people with disability. I know one of our other members wanted to raise these issues, and we'll continue as long as the government will permit.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We've heard again more of the same, that nothing is right, everything is lacking and everybody is down. I don't know how all the prosperity of British Columbia shows up when you listen to people opposite talk about the conditions in this province. They talk about the poor service. They not only try to discredit myself as minister and the government and the people that work in the ministry here — senior people — but they also discredit a large number of people who work out in the field offices and provide the service throughout the province.

I was at a meeting six weeks or two months ago where there was an advocacy group that was not particularly supportive of government. I don't know that they had any political affiliations, but they were a very strong advocacy group that had been very critical

[ Page 13130 ]

of many of the things that had happened. They spoke their views very clearly and made their concerns known. At the meeting, the people who were directly affected by the service we provided repeated time and again that the Ministry of Social Services and Housing in this province was an absolute model for the service provided and that the mentally disabled people in this province are the best cared for disabled people anywhere in the country. Yet the member opposite says that it is such terrible service.

I know there have been some problems with people suffering from mental illness, and we have experienced it at our offices when the people come to deal with the social workers or the staff. We know that there have been some problems, but we also appreciate the difficulty in being able to provide for those people in the communities. I think the member opposite, if she wishes to be critical of the fact that those people are in the communities, has to accept the opposite responsibility and say that we should go back to institutionalizing those particular people. We shouldn't have them in the communities. Or are you saying that we should have every person accompanied by another individual to guide them throughout every day, all day long?

Some of the people in the communities have a bit of difficulty functioning. Unfortunately they don't have the full abilities that you and I may have in dealing with our own problems. They do have some difficulties and require extra service and a bit of patience, but they're part of society and we have to contend with that. It's a real part of society. They are people who have a right to be here as much as the rest of us have. We have to be patient enough to deal with them and recognize that it won't always be easy. Just because it isn't easy, and because everybody is not particularly comfortable dealing with those particular situations, does not take away from their right to be part of the community.

They're out there as part of the community, and we will continue to make their lot in life better and better. For the people who are there because of mental handicaps, the service in British Columbia is equal to the service provided anywhere, and better than anything that you will find in Canada.

MS. PULLINGER: What the minister doesn't seem to understand, and what a number of members on the other side don't appear to understand, is that while deinstitutionalization is obviously a worthy goal, and one we members on this side of the House obviously support, you cannot simply just deinstitutionalize. You have to provide alternate services in the community. Those services can be very cost-effective as well as effective in human terms. You cannot simply deinstitutionalize and then walk away from those people and from the resultant difficulties that they may have.

We support deinstitutionalization, but we support it well done. We support it planned, with the appropriate services in the communities so that those people can integrate into the community. We know that homelessness has been one of the consequences of this government's ad hoc, unplanned deinstitutionalization. I think that's one of the serious problems.

The minister also mentioned that we have this great prosperity. He didn't understand what we were talking about when we have a lot of prosperity in British Columbia. It's true that we have a wealthy province — no question. The problem, Mr. Minister, is that in British Columbia, as in some other places also run by right-wing governments such as this one, the gap between those who are very well off and those who are not making it or who are marginally making it, has increased more in the 1980s — the past decade — than in any other decade in our history. We are wealthy in this province, but people are falling out of the middle class into the not-making-it category at an alarming rate. That is directly attributable to government policies. Let's be very clear about that.

I'd also like to argue in response to the minister that we are not suggesting that social workers are inadequate. We are not in any way discrediting them or maligning them. In fact, what we're arguing is that the task that they're being given is enormous, and it's simply impossible to deal with. They cannot deal with it, and this government refuses to Provide the support, services and numbers of workers necessary to deal with that. If we're going to deinstitutionalize, have healthy communities and use a more cost-effective means of dealing with people's differences and difficulties, then we'd better put those supports there. We're not arguing that there should be a whole lot more money spent; we're arguing that it should be more effectively spent by this government.

I want to focus for a minute on an institution in the Prince George area called Beausoleil House. I wonder if the minister is familiar with this institution, for starters. It's one of a number of care homes in the Prince George area, and my understanding is that it's for troubled children and youth.

I have before me an astounding amount of evidence to show that there have been what appears to be abusive means of controlling the young people at this house; for instance, making them walk miles and miles in the winter when they're wet and cold, sometimes without food or water. There have been a number of incidents reported of the workers physically abusing one of these young people in particular, in terms of grinding his face into the snow and the pebbles.

Given that this individual, Mr. Beausoleil, runs a number of these houses, I wonder if the minister can tell me what his relationship is with the ministry, first of all. Is that one of your privatized contracts, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, that is one of our purchases of service, that's correct. If the things are happening that you say are happening in that particular care home, I haven't seen them brought to my attention. I would expect that you would have brought that information to me, because obviously this is something that must have been happening over some period of time.

Have you made a submission to the ministry about the treatment of people who are in that care home? It's a very serious charge. If it's true and you're aware of that, then I think you had a responsibility to come

[ Page 13131 ]

forward and make us aware of it. Surely no member who sits in this House would have that kind of information and not pass it on immediately to the ministry. So I assume that that has been done.

With regard to the amount of service that we provide to the mentally handicapped in this province, as I understand it there are 3,500 people involved. In the community services, we spend $152.98 million, and for the continued operation at Woodlands, we spend $34.19 million. So add those two numbers together and divide that by 3,500 people and then come back and tell me if you think we spend enough in this province or not.

MS. PULLINGER: I guess the minister didn't listen to my earlier comments. I wasn't arguing there should be more spent. That wasn't the basis of my arguments at all. I'm saying that it needs to be more appropriately spent and that you need to be aware of the consequences of some of the policies of this government and deal more effectively with them.

In terms of these contracts that you now have, purchases of service as you like to call them, I wonder if the minister can tell what kind of training.... Obviously, when we had institutions, we had highly trained personnel working in them. What kind of training must people have in these purchase-of — service agreements, if you like?

I'd also like to know about the monitoring, Mr. Minister. What kind of monitoring do you have? If there is a serious and ongoing problem, for instance, why don't you know about it? Do you have no monitoring of what's happening? Obviously, in the situation the way it used to be under direct institutional care, you would know instantly if there was a problem. It appears that you don't. Can you explain to me how you deal with those?

[9:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, we do monitor, but you see, you're talking about isolated incidents, and unless we happen to be there to monitor at the moment it happened, then of course we wouldn't see that. Chances are, if somebody was abusing somebody else, they wouldn't do it while we were there watching it; it would happen at some other time.

If you have information about that, then that's important information to pass on to the ministry, and I think that you or anyone else that's aware of any such situation — particularly a Member of the Legislative Assembly — has a very clear responsibility to make us aware that that is happening.

I know that members opposite come to me with a lot of other concerns that they have in their community: someone has not received the best of service, or somebody has a problem with one aspect of service from my ministry. There's no hesitation from members opposite in coming to me and saying, "Can you have a look at this for me?" or "Can you help me with this?" I've done that for many of the people opposite. Surely if you're comfortable coming to me with that, you would be comfortable coming to me when there are cases where people are being mistreated.

You ask about training. Yes, we do have training. First of all, we have manuals for people to study about the work that they will be doing. Many of the people that provide the services take courses that are offered — UVic, I think, has one of them, and there are other places in the province where you can get courses that train people for this kind of work.

The note that the deputy provides me says that we have had no report of such incidents with children at that particular facility If there is such a thing, that should be reported to the superintendent.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. SMALLWOOD: With regard to members' intervention on this particular facility, the incidents at that facility are very well documented. The police and the ministry have been involved up in Prince George. Our Prince George member has raised it with the ministry office up there. I will make certain that the minister has all of the information that we have.

I am a little surprised, quite frankly, that you didn't have it and were not prepared to deal with it. I suppose I made the assumption that the ministry was dealing with it and involved with that situation.

I want to deal with some issues relating to disabled people and their safety in the care of the ministry. One of the issues that came to my attention and that I was particularly concerned with was the issue around the abuse of hearing-impaired children who have difficulty communicating that something is going on in their lives that is not right. The statistics show that more than 50 percent of hearing-impaired children, both male and female, have been sexually exploited some time before adulthood. I would like to know whether or not the ministry has undertaken, as a specific task to ensure that children who have difficulty communicating are supported in dealing with their life situation.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think the member was asking me questions referring to a document from my ministry. Is that correct? The previous question.... Was that document out of our ministry? Yes. So the member chose to ask me if I was aware of circumstances that were described in our own document from our own ministry. Is that correct? You received the information from us in the first place, and then you asked me if I'm aware of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley could stand and clarify for the minister.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I assume I have been recognized, since I stood in my place.

The information I have has to do with complaints that were raised by witnesses to some of the abuse. I believe that it may have been covered in one of the local newspapers in Prince George, and that is where we got most of our information.

[ Page 13132 ]

When I say that some of the information comes from the ministry, it has to do with the fact that the ministry was involved, and that there were some discussions with the local office with regard to that particular facility and the children in that facility. I have made a commitment to the minister to follow that up and to clarify any of the issues that need clarifying. I agree with the minister that the charges that have been laid by some of these witnesses are serious. The members on this side want to see the matter dealt with in the best possible fashion.

As I said, I fully expected the minister to be aware that this issue would come to him in the House, but we will deal with all of that at another time. The minister did not deal with the issue of hearing-impaired children. I would like to give an example of what some hearing-impaired children have faced in the past. In the new statistics, 50 percent of hearing-impaired children, both male and female, have been abused or exploited sexually some time before adulthood.

Here's a case that makes the point very clearly. It's the case of a boy in his early teens who was recently taken into custody and put into a foster home. The background of the child is telling of some of the shortcomings of the system. Almost a decade ago the child's mother discovered that her husband was abusing her three children. An assessment at the time indicated the need for therapy. The problem with the son, who is now in care, was that he was a special needs child with communication problems who was unable to be helped because of those problems. As he entered his teens, he began exhibiting disturbing behaviour. The ministry's response was to insist on adult supervision at all times, but it didn't provide assistance in maintaining that supervision for all the hours the boy was not in school.

The stress on the single mother and her family has been so great as to produce negative effects on the other children. The situation is certainly serious enough, but the treatment centres in B.C. would not admit the boy unless he had been charged with a criminal offence.

I think that this case emphasizes the need for special attention to this whole group of children who have difficulty dealing with life generally This example emphasizes how difficult it is with a child with communication impairments and an ability to deal with any violation of themselves personally or any crisis or trauma they may face. I'm looking for something from the minister to indicate that the ministry is indeed aware of these specific needs and is targeting them with specific programs.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question of what we do to protect the hearing impaired would be the same as I would give if you asked me what we do to protect children in general, but with special emphasis on what we would do to protect people handicapped in one way or another. We know from experience that handicapped people are often subject to abuse. Special care and provisions have to be made to ensure that they are protected. The ministry goes to considerable lengths to try to be able to assure ourselves as best we possibly can that the care they are receiving is the proper kind of care, that the people who look after them are in fact dependable and that there is provision to monitor the facility so that we know that those people are properly looked after.

It's a problem that we have to face, dealing with all handicapped people — not only the hearing-impaired but others as well. Unfortunately, abusers don't have much of a conscience. To subject anybody to abuse is a terrible crime; to subject somebody who is handicapped to abuse is absolutely atrocious. Nevertheless, it does happen.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Once again the minister gets up and says: "We're doing everything we can do. We're doing everything for these people that we would do for any child in care." Maybe the minister wasn't listening. This particular case demonstrates that there were no programs in place in the way of counselling for this child when the child was first abused. There was nothing in place, and now that the child is becoming a real problem, not only in the community but causing further family breakdown, there is no place for that child to be helped even today, ten years later.

The minister continues throughout these whole estimates to talk in the most general terms about how awful these situations are and how much he cares about those children. But I hear nothing practical that would indicate that you are targeting the development of programs that would facilitate the very symptoms of a system that is not serving those special needs. This particular situation has a child who is so disruptive that it is recommended that there be one-on-one treatment. In this particular situation, there is very clearly a need for this young boy to be put into a facility. Yet no facility will take him until such time as he actually commits a crime. It's somewhat like the homeless that we see — the mentally ill, the geriatric cases who are mentally ill — where the only option is for the police to pick them up and put them in jail, because there are no programs, no facilities, in this province.

[9:30]

Is that what you want for kids like this who have been victimized? Is that what you want for the mentally ill? Is that what you want for the geriatric cases that have been deinstitutionalized from Riverview — that the only option is incarceration? Because very clearly that's what this particular young man is facing if the ministry doesn't do something to provide cases to do the research necessary and to provide the resources in the communities to help these kids before they get to the point of needing incarceration. That's what report after report says happens when this ministry neglects kids like this.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Just to finalize, we provide a lot of service to people suffering from handicaps to assist them make their way through life. We make those counselling services available to them. There are child care workers assigned to look after individuals, but if a person is of a certain age and doesn't want to stay in a particular home, then it's pretty difficult for us to force the individual to stay.

[ Page 13133 ]

Within the parameters of the limitations of the law, we deal with them the best way we can. Once again, we provide service that's really a credit to this province and serves well those people that need the service. I have no apologies for the service we provide. We do a very special job of that, and we spend a lot of the taxpayers' money in providing that service.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Pursuant to standing order No. 46, I move that the question be now put.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. opposition House Leader take his seat, please.

Just before we proceed on this matter, I would like to draw everyone's attention.... I'm sure there's been much discussion about this most of the day, and most of you I would anticipate have already read standing order No. 46. If you haven't, I would commend it to your perusal and point out that it's stated quite forthrightly in here that: "Such motions shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate." But in the interests of absolute fairness, the Chair is prepared to hear some submissions relative to standing order 46.

MR. ROSE: You're most generous, Mr. Chair. One of your outstanding features. Is your genuine fairness. That's only one of a great number of them.

Because the government has a majority if they decide to ramrod this thing through — like they're attempting to do tonight — then ultimately in the end they win. That's what happens in majority governments. It's called the tyranny of the majority.

What we're going to have here is closure on a debate of three estimates out of a total of over 20. We're going to close it down on Friday, because the supply bill to follow this is going to have another closure motion, which seems to be the absolute ignorance of democracy in action. We're not closing down because we're short of time; we're closing down for the convenience of the government to have a leadership campaign. That's the only reason.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it seems very clear to me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe both members would take their seats for just a moment. We're getting off to a bad start here. We're not here to debate. I'm prepared to hear discussion and people rising on points of order. But we're not here to debate the issue. Having said that, I'll recognize the Attorney-General, who said that he was rising on a point of order with respect to the points being made by the opposition House Leader, I assume.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely right. It certainly sounded to me like debate, not a point of order. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's under control now.

MR. ROSE: I'm sure that the hon. Attorney-General is well aware of the rules. He's been around here for a dog's age — seems like it anyway; he's been around here forever. He should know that, in fairness to the Chair, you can only have one point of order on the floor at any one time.

Mr. Chairman, to assist you in your judgment — only to assist you, not to criticize you; no reflections on the Chair — that needs to be said, and he needs to be admonished for breaking the rules.

I have two points of order here. The first one has to do with the general rule, No. 1, "Procedure in unprovided cases." It says:

"In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages, customs and precedents, firstly, of this House and, secondly, of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House."

I'm suggesting here that going for closure on Committee of Supply after three estimates is unprecedented. There is no precedence in this House for that kind of behaviour. It's unacceptable, it's undemocratic, and we won't tolerate it — not on this side of the House.

Further, there's no mention anywhere in our rules here of a time-limit on the business of supply As a matter of fact, if we refer to that great authority on parliamentary practices in British Columbia.... I hesitate to mention his name, because he shudders every time I do it. On page 72, that great and famous parliamentarian for British Columbia says: "There is no global time-limit for completing the business of supply." To put closure in on business of supply is absolutely intolerable and unacceptable, and it defies all our precedents. There is a Latin name for this, in lawyers' language, which I can't supply. But the point is, I think, that the government can't get indirectly what it cannot get directly. Therefore I think, on strong legal grounds, that there is no precedent for this.

Let's look at the same citation on page 73: "There are clearly no hard and fast rules which govern the Speaker in coming to his decision, but he would consider such factors as time already occupied on the debate in question" — not overdone, — I read the list this afternoon of how long it took on other occasions — "the weight of the question under debate. ..." The weight of the question under debate is not Social Services and Housing: it's whether or not we have a chance to examine the estimates of about 20 other ministries, and you want to close us down after three. The citation continues: ". . how many speakers have already spoken and" — more importantly — "whether or not..."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Is the Minister of Labour trying to muzzle me? We won't accept that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair, please, hon. members.

[ Page 13134 ]

MR. ROSE: "...it appears many more wish to speak." We have many more wishing to speak. We've scarcely scratched the surface over here on this one. I don't think the government can get off the hook on this one. We didn't even arrive here until May. We were here in a cut-and-run in March — two weeks and no budget. People don't want anymore lip-flap from this side or that side; they want an election. But they want us to complete the estimates — the public spending on Environment, Fisheries, Agriculture, Forests, Attorney-General, Government Services, Lands and Parks. They want us to do all those things.

We don't intend to give this session up without a fight. You're going to have to pay for this. You may not pay for it here; you may not pay for it by Friday; but, friends, you're going to pay for it by the polls.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order — and to possibly assist the Chair so that we get both sides of the argument on the table — I just want to make it clear that we are invoking standing order 46 on the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing only, having completed at least double the average time spent over the last few years on these debates. It's hardly fair for the opposition House Leader to say they're being muzzled.

Also, Mr. Chairman — and I point this out with the greatest of respect — the opposition House Leader is making an assumption, with no basis, that we are not going to debate the rest of the estimates. So I just submit to you that we are merely putting the question on the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member for North Island, perhaps I could say what the government House Leader said in a little different way to make it a little clearer. The debate on this ministry only is subject to closure. That's the point that has to be made, I think: that the debate on the Ministry of Social Services and Housing is the only one that the closure motion applies to — not the others. It does not shut down the Committee of Supply.

MR. GABELMANN: I am pleased to hear that the government House Leader has now changed the announcement from earlier today, in saying that there is an assumption, "with no basis, " that estimates will not proceed beyond this closure motion.

I wanted a moment, Mr. Chairman, to give some specific advice on section 46. Before I do that, I take it from the minister that his comments at 2:30 p.m., when he said that this would be the last set of estimates and we would deal with three pieces of legislation, including a supply bill, and then the House would be closed down, are now no longer the case, because he has said tonight that there is no basis for that suggestion. So I assume that we are now no longer considering the possibility of the House adjourning without having considered the rest of the estimates — according to what the House Leader has said.

Now, on this specific closure motion — not palatable as it is, but with an assurance that we're going to do all the rest of the estimates — let's deal just with this particular closure motion in a less volatile way, given that the minister has now changed his position.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I heard him. He said there's no basis for the suggestion that there won't be any estimates debated. Which is it?

[9:45]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I'd like everyone to be quiet so that we can hear precisely what's being said. It's very important. Like that famous piano player Harry S Truman once said, the buck stops here, and that's me. So I'd like to be able to hear everything that goes on.

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you for those comments, Mr. Chairman, and I want to add my two cents' worth for that buck.

Section 46 (1) says: "...'that the question be now put'... unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority...." What the Chair has to consider before he makes a decision on whether he will accept this particular motion from the government House Leader is a determination about whether the rights of the minority have been infringed.

Mr. Chairman, as one member on this side of the House, I have not yet had an opportunity to participate in these estimates. I missed an opportunity likewise in the Ministry of Health estimates. I'd been ill in the previous few days; I anticipated coming back, and I have notes on my desk right now that I had intended to use in the Health estimates. I lost my rights there — that's dead and gone. In this debate, as a member of the minority in this House, my rights are infringed upon. As the Speaker has said on many occasions and as the Chairman himself has said on many occasions, the job of the Speaker and the Chairman is to protect the rights and privileges of the members of this House.

I'm giving up my rights on Health; I lost it because I was ill for a few days. As one member representing 40,000 or 50,000 British Columbians, I have not yet had an opportunity — as a member of the minority — to argue a number of issues and represent their case with the Minister of Social Services and Housing. We've had a fulsome debate, but not a long debate. Those of us who were here when a previous government decided that there should be time-limits on debate will remember that the House resolved that issue by saying there should be no time-limits on debate. That was the famous "not a dime without debate." The Socred opposition at the time said that they would not be muzzled, and the NDP government of the day said: "Yes, you're right. We will not muzzle you."

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That’s the whole story. My real point is that the Chair of the committee or the Speaker

[ Page 13135 ]

of the House is a servant of the House. He is obliged to respond to the rule which in effect says that if the rights of the minority are being infringed upon by the use of the closure motion, he does not have to accept the motion.

Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying to you, as a member of the minority in this House and as a member of a majority of British Columbians who have yet to have their arguments fully explained in this House, is that you should not accept this motion at this time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, after the remarks from the member for North Island regarding what I said, I feel I should clarify them, lest there be any misconstruing of what I said. What I said this afternoon still goes. We intend to wrap up the business of this House — what little there is left — by 1 o'clock on Friday. That doesn't mean that the members of this House will not have an opportunity at some future date to debate all of the remaining estimates.

I do point out, Mr. Chairman — and I think it's pertinent — two more quick points. The three votes that we intend to pass with the supply bill make up over 70 percent of the spending estimates of the province of British Columbia. Secondly — and I point this out with the greatest of respect to that member — there was ample time for him to enter this debate today when the second member for Victoria was making the same argument for the third time.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, in the old days before we changed the rules under your distinguished chairmanship, standing order 61 took away the removal of the right of appeal from the Chairman's decision. It is further suggested, according to my citation, that in borderline cases the member should be given the benefit of the doubt. Standing order 9 said that the Speaker gives his reasons for decisions. Standing order 61 says that the Chair may give them. Unless the Chair is prepared to protect the rights of the minority in this very fundamental case, it is incumbent upon the Chair to give his reasons for acquiescing in what I regard as trampling on the rights of the minority. I'll let you think about that one for a little while — ponder that for a while. I know you'll give it lots of thought.

I don't think we've been excessive on this. We've gone about 17 or 18 hours; '81 was 22; '84 was 12; '85 was 16; '86 was 50; in '89 it was nine and a half; '90 was 22; '91 was 19. I don't think that's excessive. If the government hadn't prepared to cut and run, which is exactly what they're trying to do, there wouldn't be any problem.

It is unprecedented in my recollection of this House — and it doesn't go back all that long, but longer than a lot of people. We've never had closure on estimates. It has never been necessary to have closure on estimates before. Why do we have it now? Is it because we've been tedious and repetitious? I don't think so. If we were tedious and repetitious the Chair would have stopped us a long time ago. Obviously we haven't been tedious and repetitious.

What is the agenda? The agenda is that the Socreds need time away from here, away from question period, out on the hustings to try and whip up a little enthusiasm for their stalled leadership debate. "It may be fraught with problems, " to quote a very important source, but I'm certain that this House will not excuse you if you fail to give your reasons for accepting what I regard as the muzzling — the gag rule — imposed by that government over there, that government with terminal incompetence. That government is gone anyway — grasping at straws. It's not acceptable here anymore.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, some years ago a committee was formed of which you were the distinguished chairman; the hon. opposition House Leader was also a member of that committee, as were I, the Minister of Health and others. I will try and aid you in your process of defining a reason. It was suggested at that time that practice recommendation No. 3 be brought in to deal with the abuse that has been coming from across the way in this particular debate. Practice recommendation 3(2) says: "The government House Leader may announce to the House that the government will proceed under standing order 46 if the motion in question has not passed the House or committee by a certain day and hour." This morning the government House Leader rose in the House, gave a certain time — gave a certain day and a certain hour. At that point in time he called the question, as was suggested by that committee and unanimously adopted by all members of this House. Those reasons are clear and explicit. That's why we have practice recommendations in the standing orders of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will take three more points of order.

MR. MILLER: I have looked at the standing orders and MacMinn's book in terms of trying to come to grips with this issue, and I want to make a very brief submission with respect to the matter. Under standing order 46 (l), as has been pointed out, it appears to be incumbent on the Chair to determine a question of abuse. There's a great deal of power given to the Chair in these matters.

I submit that 46 (l) should be read in conjunction with section 61 (3), which says, in terms of the Chairman maintaining order, that the Chair may invite submissions from members. Further, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that in looking at 61 (3), it is clear that giving up the right of appeal of decisions from the Chairman — in terms of the rule changes that preceded my entry into this House — has in fact put an additional onus or burden on the Chairman with respect to sections 46 (l) and 61 (3). Clearly, Mr. Chairman, in looking at page 261 of Parliamentary Practice and the examples from the New Zealand House of Representatives, they all deal with time and, again, the onus on the Chairman to determine that question.

I would further and finally submit, with respect to the statement of the government House Leader earlier today, that if there has been a failure in terms of dealing with the agenda, the failure has not been on this side. It has been on the government side and

[ Page 13136 ]

simply illustrates the disarray on the government benches. Therefore there is no cause, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect — given the points I have made — for the Chair to remove the rights of the opposition to pursue their parliamentary duty, which is to quiz ministers on their spending estimates.

MR. D'ARCY: First of all, Mr. Chairman, my point is that you are uncommonly tolerant in your acceptance of points of order on this discussion. But the point I wanted to make and what had disturbed me is that the first member for Kamloops, the government House Leader, in proposing his motion to the chamber, has suggested that because he is bringing in closure on this particular ministerial vote, that justifies — flowing from that — the passage of the entire supply bill.

I know of nothing in the rules of the House or in past precedent that would suggest the three ministries involved here — Health, Education and Social Services, which the government House Leader keeps referring to as 70 percent or 75 percent of the total budget.... I know of nothing, in any kind of precedent, that would suggest that one ministry, because it represents 30 percent or 40 percent or whatever it is of the budget, somehow takes precedence over another ministry that might represent 10 percent or 1 percent or 15 percent.

Mr. Chairman, if we look at the treasury benches — which are somewhat depleted; there are 20 or 21 members.... I know there have been 120 over the past four or five years because of cabinet changes, but there are only 20 tonight. But every one of them has a vote and has equal precedence under the rules of this House and of every other parliament, whether it be Tourism or.... Are we assuming that forests, international trade and development, the environment, government services and agriculture do not matter in 1991 in the province of British Columbia, and that only health, education and social services matter, and they are to be passed by closure?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We're not passing the others.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, the government House Leader has stated that he fully intends to pass the supply bill based on the passage of these three estimates. If this motion is going to be forced through, which the government House Leader has said he's going to do, I would be very happy to proceed to some of these other estimates which I believe are vital to the well-being of all British Columbians and should be debated and discussed in this chamber by every member to the fullest extent of what is needed, for the welfare of all British Columbians. But the government House Leader has said that is not to be. He has declared — and the Blues will show it — that the votes for all these other ministries are to be pushed through. Mr. Chairman, I do not accept that. It is unacceptable in a free and democratic society.

[10:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, and then I'll take one more.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member for Rossland-Trail has just made a point that there are other portfolios to be debated, other estimates to go through. But there has been nothing said on the floor of this House or any indication from the government side of the House that we are not going to be able to do just that. There is nothing which says that that debate cannot be held. We can be back here next Tuesday, July 22, or whenever. There is nothing to say that, and for anyone to stand in this House and leave that impression with those listening in the gallery is incorrect.

The member for North Island has made the point that he has not had an opportunity to participate in this debate. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there is someone else in this House who hasn't had an opportunity to discuss these very important estimates. The Social Services ministry represents the disadvantaged, the elderly and people who need assistance. We've had almost 20 hours of debate on that subject. There is a person who has been missing, the Leader of the Opposition, representing all of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition hasn't been in this House the whole time.

To make the point that there hasn't been an opportunity is a specious argument. There has been plenty of opportunity, but there have been members on that side of the House who have been repetitious, filibustering so that the people who could have made a contribution.... That they weren't in this House because they chose to be away from this House is no excuse, and no excuse for the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: Will you also listen to the House Leader?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've recognized the second member for Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: I'm keen to make my point, but I don't want to usurp the opposition House Leader.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The audience has dwindled from 12 to zero.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! This has got absolutely nothing to do with committee. If you have a problem in that respect, the man to see is the Speaker.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, you're also Deputy Speaker. You know very well my personal respect for you and how high it is. I'd like to remind you that my respect is even higher for the office you occupy. You represent a tradition at least 700 years old, ultimately,

[ Page 13137 ]

in the British parliamentary system, including the responsibility of the Speaker to protect the elected representatives from the unlimited power of the sovereign. That's why we refer to you as Speaker and why you hold the mace in front of you — to prevent the state from trampling on the rights of the citizens.

I want you to know that I support the points made so eloquently by the opposition Whip, the opposition House Leader and the member for Prince Rupert, as well as the member for Rossland-Trail. I want you to know as well that I also represent constituents who have not had their voice raised in this House, because I have not yet had the opportunity.

I don't intend to make a lengthy debate; I have three brief points I would like to raise. I have felt ill myself in the last few days, yet I've been here in the legislative precincts waiting my turn, and I beg you to protect the rights of the minority, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with.... Thank you very much. Now I'm going to call the question.

MR. ROSE: I have a point of order concerning the public's right to know. It's really a very important one; I can't minimize it. I recall what the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain had to say about my leader being absent from this debate. What I would like to say is that when my leader is absent, he's away; when your leader is absent, she's here.

I move that the debate be now adjourned until we can have consultations with the Speaker to determine whether there is abuse of the rules of this House, which was promised gavel-to-gavel coverage on electronic Hansard — and I was here when the lights went out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, If I can have the floor for just a moment.... I believe that I've been courteous and that by allowing 35 minutes of points of order, which are not required under the standing order, I have certainly been cognizant of the rights of the minority I do not think this closure motion.... Believe me, I've been thinking a lot about it, because it's never happened to me since I've enjoyed being your Chairman — and it's happened to me twice now within a week. So believe me, it leaves me with a great deal to think about — what the whole thing is all about.

I believe most sincerely that this does not represent an abuse of the House. I cannot bring myself, as hard as I might try, to accept the fact that this infringes on the rights of the minority. I was asked to give my reasons, and I'll give some. Certainly, some people haven't spoken. Maybe, in their opinion, they haven't had the opportunity to speak. I have listened to the majority of this, because when I'm not in the House, I'm listening to it over the loudspeaker in case I'm required. I think there has been ample opportunity for most people to speak if they so desired.

I appreciate the fact that the critic leads the team and that she speaks probably more often than any others, but there are others who have spoken on a number of occasions. My conscience will not let me convince myself that the rights of the minority have been infringed upon in this particular instance.

I'm going to call the question: that is, that the question be now put.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 19

Vote 52 approved.

On vote 53: ministry operations, $1,983,211,447.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to enter into the debate of the ministry operations, but I am greatly concerned about the fact that the electronic Hansard has been turned off. My concern is that the video portion of the electronic Hansard has been turned off; therefore it is denying the public the right to see what is going on in this House. So for that reason, Mr. Chairman....

[10:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: My point of order is twofold: (1) there is an agreement in this House, specifically asked for by the opposition House Leader; and (2) Hansard is still continuing.

MR. ROSE: There's going to be a motion put, and I won't keep this up. But I should clarify one other thing. We made that agreement. There was no threat of the hammer of closure. Mr. Chairman, the integrity of me and this side of the House is not something that I tamper with frivolously. When we made that agreement, we never anticipated that the government would renege on its agreement to provide full and fair debate of all the estimates. The government has said: "We're just adjourning for a little while, and, folks, we're going to come back here and debate all those dang estimates." When? We'll never see you guys again. Bon voyage.

[ Page 13138 ]

Normally I would be bound by that kind of agreement, but we didn't change the rules here; you changed them over there.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I outlined, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 27

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the question be now put.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been put.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I drew your attention to the clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: After the question has been put. The question is....

MR. GABELMANN: No, at any time, if your attention is drawn to the clock....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I apologize; I was wrong.

My attention having been drawn to the clock, there's no matter of a motion on the floor. I'll just rise and report to the Speaker.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises, reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 19

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I know that you can't — according to some rules, anyway — ask the question to the Chair directly, so perhaps I could direct it to the government House Leader. If the Chair cares to answer, then it would certainly be welcome — and I've given the Chair a pretty substantial escape-hatch. Around 10 o'clock the lights went out in this building. When we agreed to an electronic Hansard, it was to be gavel-to-gavel coverage. On two previous occasions the uplinks, or something having to do with the contracts, have not permitted us to have a full electronic Hansard available to the public. I think the public of British Columbia.... I don't know how many of them are going to be sitting up tonight fascinated by this debate. I'm quite certain that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has heard enough of this point of order. Would the member take his seat. The members of this House, through the Board of Internal Economy, instructed the Speaker to make every effort to provide electronic, gavel-to-gavel coverage that could be broadcast on television.

The first time that that is technically available to run on a permanent basis will be in October of this year; at that time we will have provision for 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week coverage — mercifully with somebody else in this Chair. However, the Speaker undertook on your behalf to provide a temporary service, which has been in place, more or less, since the House met. The requirement for the House is for an electronic Hansard, and such requirement is currently met. There

[ Page 13139 ]

are a number of occasions in the ensuing weeks, depending on how long the House sits, when there will be no possibility of television coverage, because this is a temporary situation.

The Chair made the decision on humanitarian grounds. We do not stand in this House for ten hours, but those people who are in service with us in providing electronic coverage are doing just that.

The technical requirements of the House have been met, and the requirements and the recommendations of the Board of Internal Economy have been met. On that basis, I will listen to the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE: I accept your explanation: humanitarian, very kindly and considerate and all those good things.

I would ask, then, that the government House Leader, in view of the fact that the public has a right to know and people have a right to have some time off, suspend debate now and we continue this little merry-go-round tomorrow morning when there will be full electronic Hansard coverage of these debates.

[10:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I have been advised that the House, by vote, ordered that we resume sitting now, after my attention had been drawn to the clock. Therefore the committee is doing what it was instructed to do: sitting.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move that the question on vote 53 be now put.

MR. SIHOTA: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that if one member draws your attention to the clock, that ought not to preclude the opportunity for another member to do the same. And then you must put your mind to that issue again. I'll be just one more second: what we have seen tonight is a government seeking to cut and run, to deny debate in this House on particular votes, and now....

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this member is clearly abusing the privileges of this committee. There is a question before this House, and under standing orders that question must be put.

MR. SIHOTA: What we have witnessed tonight is a government seeking to cut and run from this House, to avoid the scrutiny of debate on estimates, and then to deny the people of the province an opportunity to see what's transpiring in this House by cutting television coverage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member. This has all been covered before. It was covered before we even dealt with the first motion. The motion before us is that the question now be put. All those in favour say aye.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ayes have it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question was that the question be now put. I've announced the results. The government House Leader moved the closure motion.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: My colleague, in an attempt to debate vote 53, was on her feet before there was any debate. You have to make a judgment of whether or not the minority's rights are trampled by the majority, since we cannot question the Chair.

My colleague hadn't uttered one word of debate on vote 53. She talked about the electronic Hansard and television, and I think that in all fairness, for which you are famous....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let me point out to the hon. opposition House Leader that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley rose to her feet after vote 53 was called and moved that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. She was recognized at that time.

MR. ROSE: But in all fairness, Mr. Chairman, she did not debate vote 53. The reason she wanted to rise and report progress is that we wanted to....

HON. MR. VEITCH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all hon. members take their seats please.

It's getting late. People have been a little testy most of the afternoon and are probably more testy now than they were earlier. We're accomplishing very little. I had recognized the opposition House Leader on a point of order, which he never completed. Maybe he would like to stand and complete his point of order.

MR. ROSE: I have completed my remarks. What I'm asking for is an opportunity for my colleague to state her case on this point of order, and I will sit down and defer to her.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But hon. member, I pointed out that your colleague, the member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley, rose to her feet. When vote 53 was introduced the member rose to her feet and was recognized

[ Page 13140 ]

immediately; she spoke briefly and then moved that the committee rise, report progress and asked leave to sit again.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, when I rose to take my place in the debate around vote 53, I served notice to the Chair at that time that I was prepared to enter into that debate. Although I had grave concerns about the electronic video portion of Hansard being shut off, I moved the motion with the intent to have the House deal with that issue and then return to the debate and allow me to take my place after serving notice.

So I would ask the Chair to consider that. I would ask the Chair to consider the fact that when the government House Leader moved the vote on vote 53, I was on my feet prepared to resume that debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I heard very clearly what you said, and I understand what you said. But we can't really operate on the basis of something you intended to do after the fact, because we weren't aware of it at that time. We went through this....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just hold up for a minute, please, and let me finish. We went through all the various routines and the votes. We were ordered back into committee, and as soon as we were ordered back into committee the government House Leader rose to his feet and moved closure on vote 53. That's what we're dealing with.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Point of order. To assist the Chair, the House Leader rose, put a motion and you called the question. The question has been put and has been called, Mr. Chairman. You must therefore take the vote.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I do not recall you calling vote 53 prior to the government House Leader making his motion.

MR. PERRY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I know the acoustics in this chamber are often difficult, and the noise from various hon. members makes it difficult for some of us to hear. I want to offer to you my witness that the account of the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is exactly the way she described, and I suggest that the Blues will show that tomorrow. She reserved her right to debate vote 53. I heard her say very distinctly and precisely the words she told you in her point of order a moment ago. The Blues will show that later this evening if necessary, or tomorrow.

Mr. Chair, we have Hansard recording the debate, as the Speaker has informed us; we have the ability to peruse those documents if the point is in dispute. But I wanted to offer you one independent ear which was listening very carefully and heard the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley state her intention to debate after the point when the televised proceedings had been clarified with the assistance of the Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Now I've listened to all the points of order. I distinctly recall the government House Leader standing and calling closure on vote 53, which I accepted. I called the question. I heard the ayes and nays and said the ayes have it. Now the easiest way to settle this — and I'm surprised that some member of the opposition hasn't mentioned it already — is to call a division. We're voting on the closure motion, that the question be now put.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have to protest in the strongest terms possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division has been called, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I gave notice to you of my intention to continue the debate on vote 53. I very clearly...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member. I've listened to you, and the way I've explained it is the way it has transpired and the way it's got to be. A division has been called.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you cannot or will not take your seat, I will have to ask you to leave.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 19

MR. ROSE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm well aware of the rule about reflections on past votes and all the rest of it. I'm also aware of reflections on the Chair. I think everybody knows that you have the utmost respect in this House, but I would wish, before any

[ Page 13141 ]

further closure motions are put on clauses or votes in an estimate, that you would have another look, because it's your responsibility, sir, to look after the rights of the minority.

[10:45]

It says here in standing order 46 (l): "After a question has been proposed" — with no debate; this motion was proposed on vote 53 with no debate whatsoever — "a member rising in his place may claim to move 'That the question be now put...'" The hon. House Leader did that. This is the crucial part: "...and, unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority...." If there has been no debate on vote 53, it's closure, and it's up to the Chair to respect the rights of the minority, especially if those people haven't had an opportunity to speak at all. This was the case here, sir. I hate to admonish you on this one. I'm not doing that. Since there were no speakers on 53 whatsoever, not one....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order. To assist the Chair, the opposition House Leader was making the same point over and over again. When he says that there was no debate on vote 53, he is incorrect. By tradition and agreement in this House, it is agreed in estimates that the vote for the minister's office shall be deemed to be the vote for the entire ministry. The opposition House Leader knows that to be the case, so when he says that there was no debate on vote 53, he knows he is incorrect. He specifically asked me on that point before we started estimates in this session. I clarified to him that it would be the case during this session. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that vote 53 has been debated at length.

MR. ROSE: I would remind the government House Leader that when we had these agreements in the past — a gentleman's agreement — on certain procedures by leave, it did not include the club of closure. This opposition has been battered over the head with a club of closure. When that happens, all agreements are off.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I thank both the hon. members for their advice and their words. The Chair requires no reminding in this respect because, as I recall, this procedure of dealing with each of the votes within a ministry under the one vote itself — under one heading — has been going on for a number of years. With all due respect to my friend the opposition House Leader, one only has to refer to Hansard and to what's transpired over the past 18 hours to find that most — I would say 90 percent — of the items included there relate directly to vote 53 as opposed to vote 52.

Vote 53 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 19

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move the committee rise and report resolution.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I have to deal with the question before me, hon. members. I can't deal with a point of order in the middle of a vote.

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm rising to reserve the right to move a motion of privilege at the next opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: That's so recorded. When shall the report be considered?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Forthwith, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on June 12, 20 and 25 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $10,669,971,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the Ministries of Education, Health and Social Services and Housing of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992. The sums will include $2,668,000,000 authorized for these purposes under section I of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1991,

MR. ROSE: For clarification, Mr. Speaker, do I understand that with the television off in the dead of night, we're not even going to get a supply bill? What we're going to get is a motion... ?

[ Page 13142 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The sequence of events would unfold that there must be a bill for this to proceed. The member should be aware of that.

MR. ROSE: But there's also a motion before us, because the minister just moved it. And you're giving notice of a bill. Do I take it that that's what is happening?

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. Is the motion completed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, the motion is completed.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1991

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1991.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to move a privilege motion with respect to this matter.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is introduced to provide supply for government programs of the specified ministries for the 1991-92 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committee of Supply, after consideration of the estimates. Three months of their operations continued under Supply Bill (No. 1), 1991 is included within the current bill.

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn. Let me correct that. I move that the House, at its rising, stand adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

MR. ROSE: As you say so eloquently and accurately, Mr. Speaker, the motion is debatable. We on this side of the House intend to debate it. We've had about a week now of extended sittings. We said we don't object to extended sittings, because we're here to work, and we want that side to be here to work as well. We want them to be in this House debating estimates, not cutting and running as they did in March and as they intend to do again.

It's not just a case of needing more time. We don't need more time, like starting at 9 o'clock in the morning. I noticed that quick reference to the time that we are expected to assemble. You know what we need? We don't just need more time; we need more estimates. Because what the government is planning for everybody — and it's transparent — is that for the first time in my memory, and maybe in other people's, after simply three estimates they want to get out of here.

Talking about being long and wordy, and that we need more time.... We need more time because you want to adjourn for political reasons; that's why. In '82 we had 22 hours; in '84, 12 hours; in '85, 16 hours; in '86, 15 hours; in '90, 22 hours; and in '91, 19 hours. That's just on one estimate — Social Services and Housing. No closure in those days; no closure whatsoever. Why now, oh Lord? Why do you need closure now, when it went all those hours with no thought of closure? I'd like to know, because I think it's important.

It isn't a case of it being too long. Let's just have a look at the total elapsed time of estimates. I read some of them this afternoon. In 1977 it was 262 hours, and no closure; in 1978, 126 hours and no closure; in 1979, 81 hours and no closure. The minister over there is going to say: "Oh yeah, but that was for the whole works." That's what we want. We want to debate the whole works. We don't want to just debate three. We want them all, and we're not going to tolerate this business of cutting and running and getting out of here. In 1981 it was 216 hours; in 1982, 115 hours. It's just not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, we don't mind going at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, even though it's 11 o'clock right now. But we don't want to go back just to debate the estimates for three ministries. What about the Ministry of Native Affairs? What about the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services. We'd like to debate them. What about Tourism? What about Environment? Now there's a biggie. There's the biggie minister sitting right over there with a smirk on his face; there he is smiling, even though he's got the big problem of the Expo lands on his hands. What about the Ministry of Transportation and Highways? There's another one that's very important. We want to debate them at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. Bring them on and we'll debate them.

[11:00]

What about the Ministry of Women's Programs? We haven't debated that one. We haven't even had a look at it. What about Agriculture? What about Lands and Parks? What about the Provincial Secretary? There's a real pork-barrel, and there's the chief porker sitting right over there, looking puffy and rumpled like he....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have a point of order from the government House Leader.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's difficult enough listening to this prattle, with the member trying to keep a straight face, but I don't think the Provincial Secretary or any other member should be subjected to that type of abuse in this House. I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: The tradition of the House is that where one member finds the remark made by another member to be unparliamentary and withdrawal is requested, a withdrawal is forthcoming. But where the member who has been offended decides that he is not offended, then I would ask the member to continue.

While I have your....

[ Page 13143 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. This prompts me to remind you of one other thing. I advised you earlier of the unilateral decision taken by the Chair with regard to television coverage. It may assist the members to know that I also made the same humane decision in terms of another area of the Speaker's responsibility — that is, the dining-room. Those of you contemplating being here later this evening or early in the morning might take it under consideration that the Chair has taken it upon himself — again for humanitarian reasons — to release the staff and send them home at 10 p.m.

MR. ROSE: Had the minister been offended, I would have been quick to withdraw, but since it's impossible to offend that minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It is very hard to offend this minister. I just want to let the Speaker know that I understand where it is coming from, and I take it in the same vein.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are debating a motion to adjourn. Perhaps if we could stay somewhat relevant on that issue, then the Chair would be pleased to listen to the debate.

MR. ROSE: I do admit that I might have been a bit discursive there, but I did a transient ring around it in an attempt to make a point. I've made the point before that some people have linear thinking, and the rest of us who are more creative tend not to be so linear; we tend to be more....

MS. MARZARI: More horizontal.

MR. ROSE: Someone suggested more horizontal, but that's not the case.

The Provincial Secretary' s estimates are very interesting to us; they're very important to us. We won't ever hear from him; we'll never see him again. He's gone but not forgotten.

We'd like to hear from the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism too. We don't have a chance. At 9 a.m. tomorrow, do you know what we're going to be doing? We're going to be doing committee stage on a couple of bills. There's nothing on the order paper, anyway. Then we're going to go into Committee of Supply and debate this gag rule here, that it's going to end on Friday at 1 p.m.

I'd like the Minister of Forests.... Now there is a real biggie. A tree fell on him one time, and that's the problem he's having. But we would like to talk to him about silviculture. We have no opportunity to do that.

The Premier — wherever she is. We would like to talk about vote 1 and the Premier's estimates. She's not here. I think she agrees with all this closure stuff — the gag rule. Open government, full debate. She's not here, and we're gagged.

The Minister of Finance, the Attorney-General, the Boundary-Similkameen Solicitor-General, the Minister of Energy — I'm quite sure the member from Cranbrook would love to probe into the intimate recesses of his heart and head. We haven't heard about him. And the Minister of Advanced Education.... I don't think I need to say a great deal more. We don't need more time. What we need is more estimates, and we're not getting them. The people should know that. This government is in turmoil and chaos, and they're anxious to get out of here. They're anxious to get onto their own agenda. Do you know what their own agenda is? "Lord, please tell us how to win the next election. How do we reverse the polls? It doesn't matter who we're loyal to, let's just get anybody; it doesn't matter. Let's have a look at the polls." Terminal incompetence.

HON. MRS. GRAN: What's the answer?

MR. ROSE: I think the answer is that the Minister of Women's Programs should run, and the Minister of Social Services and Housing should run. If he ran and won, he would give the Leader of the Opposition charisma.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will not allow a personal attack on a member who is not present. It's not permissible to have a personal attack on a member on your own side.

MR. ROSE: My colleague says it's time to quit while I'm ahead. There's some question about whether I'm ahead at the moment. But I don't really think that we should treat this frivolously, because to us this is a very important matter. Somebody — I think it was Sidney Smith in the seventeenth century — once said in an essay: "Do not think me frivolous because I'm facetious, and I'll not think you are wise because you are grey."

MR. CLARK: I am pleased to rise briefly in this debate on the motion to adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, because I don't think we should adjourn. We're proving that right now, of course. But the point is not really the time- the point is what we're debating. We're not debating forestry or the environment or transit or finance or trade, development and tourism, or labour or the Premier's estimates, or the women's ministry or energy. We should be debating those now, and if the government wanted to, they could have had the House sit lengthy hours from the time we started. If they had wanted to get out early, they could have run it until 10 o'clock every night. They could have debated all of these estimates. We could be debating real estimates now, instead of debating whether we adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. But that's not happening. The government, desperate to get out, wants to do something that no government in the history of British Columbia has ever done. No government has adjourned the Legislature and not passed the budget.

[ Page 13144 ]

This is the only government — except for one — since Confederation that has not brought in a budget before we ran out of money. That's why we're in this predicament. Everything got backlogged because of internal problems with Social Credit, and so we've violated more traditions in this last few months than at any time in history. And those traditions are very important to the governing of this place.

I know that many people don't really appreciate that, and I know that people in my constituency don't know the difference between — by and large — closure and whether the budget is passed or not. But they do know that they elect their member to scrutinize both the taxes that they pay and the spending decisions of government. That's being denied to members on this side of the House; it's being denied to all members, with the exception of three ministries.

I would be in favour of this motion to adjourn to 9 o'clock if the government House Leader would stand up and say we're going to debate forestry, reforestation or overharvesting of certain regions. I'd be in favour of coming back at 9 o'clock if we would debate the MOU and the deal struck by this administration, or if we would debate the hardship that's being felt around the province. I would be in favour of coming back at 9 o'clock if we were going to debate mill closures and the future of our forestry communities. But we're not going to debate those things; they won't allow that debate. They want to get out of here and deal with their internal problems. We should be here debating the kinds of issues in forestry that are so important to the future economy of this province — jobs. People are losing their livelihood, mills are closing all around B.C., and nowhere are we going to have the opportunity to debate that in this chamber. If we don't debate something as fundamental as forestry in B.C. and the government's incompetence in that regard, and if we don't debate the kinds of mill closures we're seeing in B.C., my goodness, what will our constituents think? What do the constituents in Kamloops think when their member doesn't allow debate in this House on forestry? What do the constituents in Port Alberni think? What do the people who are losing their jobs in forestry think when there is no opportunity afforded members of the Legislature to debate that question?

I would be in favour of this motion to come back at 9 o'clock if we had any assurance that any of those important questions on the future of forestry communities, the future of the economy of B.C., were going to be debated. But no, Mr. Speaker, we've only had debate on three spending estimates. None of the economic questions, none of the things that concern most British Columbians, have really been debated, with the obvious exceptions of health and the social side. On the economic side, on the bread-and-butter questions, on taxes and on paycheques for people — none of that will be debated. None of the economic ministries will be debated by this administration. They're afraid of it because unemployment is running higher in B.C. than virtually anywhere else in Canada.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: It's higher than Ontario, Mr. Member. And if you look at the projections in B.C.'s own budget, unemployment figures are higher than virtually anywhere else in Canada. But more importantly, not only are they higher generally....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Go around the communities, Go to Nelson, Mr. Minister — who likes to talk about unemployment being good in British Columbia — and look at 16 and 17 percent unemployment. Go to your home riding in Kamloops and look at 15 percent unemployment. Go around the province. Go to Prince George; go to Port Alberni, with its layoffs; go around the forestry communities in this province and look at unemployment. None of those things will be debated in this House, because you're afraid to debate. Your record is abysmal. We should be coming back at 9 o'clock tomorrow and debating those important issues.

What about the environment? All of the polls show that British Columbians are still concerned about the environment. I see the former Environment minister is here, and I'm pleased to see that. What about the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation and the fiasco that this minister brought? Why can't we debate that in this chamber, Mr. Speaker? Why can't we debate those issues that are important to British Columbians: air quality, toxic waste, soil removal at the Expo lands, parks and all the issues of the environment?

They don't want to debate, because their record on the environment is one of the worst in Canada. What about those issues on the environment that are so difficult to solve that everywhere members go in British Columbia people want to talk about them? They want to talk about overharvesting in our forests. They want to know that we can have good-quality jobs and a healthy and clean environment. I'm not talking about the government members on that side of the House; I'm talking about the environment of this province. They don't want to debate that. They won't allow a debate. They want to get out, for virtually the first time in the history of British Columbia, and leave this place months and months into the fiscal year and not debate the environment.

What about transportation and highways? You'd think Social Credit members would know, after all their years of using highways to get elected, that highways are critical to the economic development of British Columbia. Infrastructure is critical to our economic development. Everywhere you go in British Columbia, every time you go into a small town, they say: "We need a road. We need a road fixed here. Look at that. If we had a road in here we could develop those resources." Look at the north. Look at the abysmal quality of roads in some parts of British Columbia. That won't be debated in this chamber, because they don't want to bring forward the Highways estimates for debate.

What about transit? What about ALRT to Richmond, which could be debated in this House? What about ALRT or light rapid transit to Coquitlam, where they need it? They don't want to debate transportation;

[ Page 13145 ]

they're afraid to bring that into the House because they know that the people know that transit in this province is woefully inadequate. If we want to move people out of cars and into public transit, we should have a quality public transit system. They don't want to debate that.

If we were coming back at 9 o'clock tomorrow to debate transit and rapid transit to the suburbs of Coquitlam, Mission and Richmond, we'd be in favour of this motion. But they don't want any debate on transportation or on highways — no debate on the solutions that British Columbians want.

[11:15]

What about Finance estimates? We just began them. They don't want to talk about hiding the real deficit of British Columbia. They don't want to talk about how they've cooked the books so the deficit is smaller than it really is. They don't want a real debate on their finances, because they know that they pretend to be sound financial managers — but they're not.

What about empty office space? What about the B.C. Buildings Corporation and the kinds of debate we could have in here? What about the big site down at the Plaza of Nations that is sitting empty? We're paying half a million dollars of taxpayers' money down the toilet every year while that site sits empty.

What about the member for Little Mountain? I notice she has gone, Mr. Speaker. She wanted to debate Social Services. She could have debated, but she left. We could debate the fact that she signed those contracts at the Plaza of Nations. She signed the sweetheart deal that increased the value of that property for Concord Pacific. She signed those contracts for ten years, and they're now sitting empty. What about that? We and the people of British Columbia want debate on that, and we're not having a debate. We're being denied a debate by this government. They're afraid to debate those issues that concern the economy of British Columbia.

What about Development, Trade and Tourism? What about the member from Alabama — or wherever he used to be from? I'd like to hear him in debate in this House. Id like to hear that accent that we hear....

AN HON. MEMBER: What have you got against Alabama?

MR. CLARK: Alabama, Louisiana or Texas — they have the same kinds of policies down there that we're getting from this administration, Mr. Speaker. That's where he learned it.

What about a debate on economic development? We had the current Premier reverse the former Premier, who is here, and say: "No more loans to business." Then the other day she said: "Oh, wait a minute. Maybe we can have loans to businesses outside the lower mainland." We've had another flip. There have been so many flips, Mr. Speaker, that they're going to get whiplash changing their positions all the time.

What about economic development? If anything in British Columbia in an economic slowdown deserves to be debated by the members of this House, it's economic development. Where is the planning to deal with diversification of our resources? Where is the planning that could be in place now to take advantage of any recovery? What about secondary manufacturing? What about value-added in our forest sector?

The Forests minister is here. Why are we still importing 50 percent of our sawmill equipment in British Columbia? Why are we still importing 50 percent of our logging equipment? Why can't we build it here? Why can't we talk about government policies designed for diversification of our economy? There are thousands of people unemployed in this province, people with skills who want to work. There are people in our shipbuilding industry — welders, fabricators and fitters — who could go to work building manufacturing capacity in this province. Where are they? They don't want to debate that. They want to leave. They don't want to debate those kinds of economic questions.

What about our shipbuilding industry? The federal government is going to give another 12 minesweepers to Halifax. What about our share of the shipbuilding industry from the federal government? Not a peep. No debate in this House on shipbuilding. The shipbuilding industry is on its knees; it needs help. We should be demanding our share of federal procurement. We should be demanding that this government take action in terms of a third SeaBus. I see the member for West Vancouver. What about a third SeaBus that helps the people in West Vancouver but also creates jobs in our shipbuilding industry? They don't want to debate that, Mr. Speaker. They want to leave here, after we pass three estimates.

What about all those issues of concern to British Columbians, to taxpayers and, more importantly, to the average citizen who wants a fair share? They demand that their Members of the Legislative Assembly come in here and debate issues of importance to them. But that's not what is happening. What is happening is that they want to get out of here because they have their own internal problems. They have their own internal dissent. They want to run the Legislature.... They have to adjourn the Legislature because they have a leadership convention. Does the business of government stop because they have internal problems? Is there any less unemployment because they have a leadership convention? Are there fewer people being laid off in the forest industry because they've got internal Social Credit problems? Those are real problems that should be dealt with in this House, and they're not.

What about labour? We have a Minister of Labour who attacks Bill 82 every time he opens his mouth. What about a debate on labour policy? Where does the Minister of Labour stand? He keeps attacking the government's policy. I notice that the member for Saanich, the author of Bill 82 who actually moved it in his name in the House and stood here and defended it day in and day out and told his caucus members to support it, has now said he's opposed to it. If we were coming back at 9 o'clock....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is doing quite well, but he has forgotten that I used to be the

[ Page 13146 ]

Deputy Speaker. Therefore I know what is acceptable in debate in committee. You are now asking the House to consider whether we should adjourn on items which I would rule out of order were I still the Deputy Speaker, because you are debating items not covered in estimates but only covered in the throne speech, a budget speech or second reading of a bill. The member must stay in order, It's not difficult, but you must stay in order. The Speaker is listening.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand corrected. We will just talk about labour policy with this minister, because the Minister of Labour should be held to account. We want to see him live on television, stammering out those answers every day, hour after hour, so the people of British Columbia can see the quality of members on that side of the House when it comes to something as important as labour policy.

We want international competitiveness, but not at the price of workers' wages and working conditions. We should say to people: "Let's work to make this province internationally competitive and have good quality working conditions." Let's have that debate in this chamber. But we're not having that. They don't want to subject that minister and his spending estimates to the . scrutiny of this chamber. They don't want to debate labour policy in this House. They don't want to have that minister stand up in this House, because they are afraid of what he might say. They're deathly afraid of having him up in this House for hours. They want to cut and run; they want to get out of here with only three estimates passed.

What about the Premier? What about debating the estimates of the Premier — the current Premier, that is? No debate. They are afraid to have that person subjected to debate in this House. They all stood up and lined up behind that interim Premier and said: "I'm in favour. I'm on her side. Please let me into cabinet." Some people got into cabinet by vowing fidelity to that member who is now the Premier of the province. It looks like somebody else is getting into the race now, and suddenly they are worried because they were supporting her, and they're not sure she is going to win.

We should have a debate in this House to test that member. They want her to leave this chamber and not be subject to the scrutiny, day in and day out, of members of the opposition, because they are afraid that that scrutiny is undermining their support for that Premier. If we were coming back at 9 o'clock in the morning to debate the interim Premier's estimates, so she could show the people of British Columbia why she deserves to be Premier of the province and so she could stand up in this chamber and show how she reacts to legitimate questions from members of the opposition, then Id be in favour of coming back at 9 o'clock. But of course, they want out. They don't want the Premier to be subject to debate.

I'm surprised that the member for West Vancouver, who is supporting the member for Little Mountain's leadership, wants to adjourn, Mr. Speaker. You'd think that the member would want to have the Premier's estimates debated, so that they could see the Premier's spending estimates debated in this House. But they all want out, because they have to deal with their own internal problems.

I say that all of the economic ministries of this government have to be debated. There is an economic slowdown in British Columbia, and in parts it's very serious. Those are very serious to real people in this province — real people who are being laid off. That's what we should be doing here and debating. Not a single economic ministry will be debated by these people. They are afraid of it. They want to get out of here as fast as they can and deal with their internal problems and not be subject to the scrutiny of members of this House when it comes to unemployment, paycheques, the environment, forestry, transportation or finance.

They don't want any of the economic portfolios debated, because they know they are vulnerable. They know that the more it goes on and the more debate we have on those questions, the farther down they sink in the polls, no matter how they try. They want to get out of here as fast as they can. It's unacceptable in a democracy not to pass a budget. It's unacceptable in a democracy for the government not to be held accountable for the economic decisions it is making, particularly when there's an economic slowdown in British Columbia. They are afraid to debate policy initiatives that should be brought about to deal with the real problems British Columbians face, Mr. Speaker. This is not an academic exercise. It's critical to the functioning of our form of government that governments be held accountable for their taxing and spending authorities. They want to do something that no government has ever done in the history of British Columbia, which is to go virtually a full fiscal year without passing a budget and without having debate on 17 ministries of government. It's unacceptable.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's always a pleasure to get up in this House to speak after the member for Vancouver East, because you really don't need any notes when you start to think about getting up. He leaves you enough to say. I'm never amazed at the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party when they talk about who wants to be in this House and who wants to debate.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member very carefully. Just in quick addition of all of the items that he mentioned they want to debate — the things they would do as a party... We'd probably have a $20 billion deficit in this province. It's too bad we don't have television on tonight, so that people in this province can see the kinds of things you're promising and the kind of money you want to waste.

We're the party that wants to debate issues; we're the party that wants to talk about issues. We have been talking about them during the last few weeks that we've been here. But I also want to talk about the NDP. They talk about having no opportunity to debate. I remember when we were on Supply Act (No. 1) ; I'm sure they've forgotten about that already. They debated Supply Act (No. 1) longer than ever before — 14 hours in this House, plus the four days of debate.... That party went through every estimate of the govern-

[ Page 13147 ]

ment in 14 hours, saying: "We'll never get a chance to debate this, so we're doing it under Supply Act (No. 1)." I remember the member saying that.

They've had a chance to do 70 percent of the estimates, 70 percent of the dollars, with 14 hours on Supply Act (No. 1). I haven't seen anything from them in a positive vein yet. They don't want to talk about all of the positive things that are happening in this province. They get very touchy when we talk about what's happening in Ontario.

I don't intend to speak very long. I just wanted to make that point. Supply Act (No. 1) — 14 hours in this House by the members on that side. They've had ample opportunity. Their party moved earlier tonight.... They wanted to go home early, and now they want to keep this debate going. I don't know, maybe they don't want to get here by 9 o'clock. It's a little early for most of them. But this party will be here at 9 o'clock in the morning, talking about all the good things this government has done. I'm not afraid of getting out of here for a few weeks, Maybe we'll come back after July 20 with a new leader, and we'll go to election. And we'll still be on this side and they'll still be on that side.

Mr. Speaker, when you've been around politics for a few years, you tend to go back and read some old quotations. Knowing that this debate would come up tonight, I went to the library a little earlier and thought, well, I'm going to find out what Ernie Hall had to say about the opposition when he was on the government side of the House and he was bringing in very similar motions to what we're doing today. I just want to read one of the quotes. I don't want to read too many of them, because I don't want to bore them with their former members' speeches. In justifying the motion — I'm quoting from the newspaper — Ernie Hall said:

"Provincial Secretary Ernie Hall claimed the new limitations weren't much different from those governing other jurisdictions. He accused the opposition" — and I would never do this to our opposition — "of rumour-mongering throughout the session. He said: 'You've accused the government of dealing in the black market. You said we affected prices on the stock market. You accused us of lying'."

We would never say that about our opposition, but that's what Ernie Hall said.

[11:30]

He ended his speech on an almost poetic note, Mr. Speaker. He said: "It's perhaps time we part company for a while." Then he moved the motion placing restrictions on debate. That was the NDP when they were in power. This government's doing no different, except that we don't use attacks on the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, there are rules that have to take place, and that's why there's a rule book. This party has used the rules. We feel it's time to adjourn for a little while, but we look forward to meeting you in the next election. We've done it so many times. And I look forward to being on this side of the House again after the next election, when I'm sure that somewhere down the line, in the next few years, we'll go through this same debate again.

MR. SIHOTA: The member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound would like to close his eyes and wish as hard as he could, like that famous fairy-tale character, and hope that maybe somehow this government will be returned to power. Let me suggest that after a stunt like we've seen tonight and what we've seen this week, it won't happen.

As my other colleagues have said, I have no problem with coming back here at 9 o'clock in the morning to debate a number of items. But I have a lot of problems with the motives of the government in bringing forth this type of motion and with the intentions of the government, as exhibited not just by the motion that's before us but in their actions over the past 24 hours. It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that this government is now seeking to put an end to debate, to scrutiny and to discussion about all the remaining estimates of this government.

It has been said by many that this is a corrupt administration and an arrogant administration. I won't comment on the first item but I will on the second. I don't want to talk....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll just wait for the Provincial Secretary's blood pressure to go down a bit, so that he can settle down for a moment and listen to what I've got to say. I know that he feels the sting of the comments that we make, but I hope he will listen and understand — if he can do both.

This is a government, as I was saying, that is known for its corruption, but we won't deal with that tonight. We'll just deal with the arrogance, because that is the second quality that we on this side of the House notice about this government. In introducing this motion, one sees the kind of arrogance that permeates through this government and saturates the activities of every member opposite. First of all, it's arrogant for members of the government not even to be here during the course of this debate; to know that they can introduce this motion, go back to their offices and do whatever they want to do and use the blunt instrument of their majority to try to push this motion through, knowing full well....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Settle down again, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, speaking of teddy bears, Mr. Provincial Secretary, I'm sure you know about a few. Now that you've settled down....

They want to use the blunt instrument of their majority to ensure that there will be no scrutiny of the activities of this administration.

What we should be doing at 9 o'clock is dealing with the policy decisions of this administration and with the actions of various ministers within this administration. We should be asking questions, and

[ Page 13148 ]

they should be here to answer those questions at 9 o'clock in the morning. Instead, what they want to do is avoid the very kind of scrutiny that they so aptly deserve. In fact, if you take a look at what has transpired over the last four years, in a funny sort of way, you can understand why they don't want to be here to be cross-examined as to their policies and behaviour and as to the intentions of various ministers as representatives of the provisions of the estimates that haven't been debated to date.

I know that the Minister of Labour does not want to face the scrutiny of debate on the policies of his ministry, particularly, if I may say, as they relate to reform of the Workers' Compensation Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I had to chastise the member for Vancouver East once again because of the complexity of this motion. We're dealing with a motion to rise and report. You must deal only with matters which could normally be dealt with in estimates. You will recall that Sir Erskine May's seventeenth edition, on page 324, limits very tightly that debate. Now there's lots of scope for you, but you must remember to stay within the scope of that debate.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to deal only with the matters that we could deal with during the course of estimates debate and not during legislation, but they don't want to deal with issues. I see the Minister of Native Affairs sitting in the House, and the purpose of this motion in part is to allow him to avoid scrutiny and debate around some of the policy decisions that will be made by his ministry.

We've seen, for example, my good colleague the second member for Cariboo raise questions in this House about the First Citizens' Fund. This minister has yet to answer as to what the intentions of the government are with respect to lifting the freeze on that fund, which was established as a trust for native people in this province. The fund was frozen by the actions of the Premier and the Minister of Native Affairs. The Minister of Native Affairs has publicly indicated that the fund would be unfrozen, but it still has not been unfrozen, notwithstanding the fact that a whole series of other funds have been unfrozen with respect to business loans. Surely the Minister of Native Affairs should be scrutinized on the matter of his inability — maybe due to the absence of a poll or influence on the part of the minister — to persuade his colleagues that they should reverse the decision with respect to that fund. And I'm sure, as the minister responsible for native affairs seems to indicate right now, that he sees with some glee the benefit of the fact that he will not be subject to that kind of scrutiny.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today in this great province of ours, dealing with a galaxy of concerns relating to native affairs in British Columbia that flow from many of the court decisions that have come down in B.C. In the past few years, dealing with issues such as fishing, hunting, aboriginal title and so on.... All of those are complex matters that should be debated. People in this province expect those kinds of matters to be debated, and at 9 o'clock in the morning, that's what we should be debating. But the purpose and intent of the government is to avoid that kind of scrutiny. So the Minister of Native Affairs does not have to address the inadequacy of this government as it relates to native policy in British Columbia.

I see the Provincial Secretary here, Mr. Speaker, and that minister should be scrutinized. He should be cross-examined with respect to a number of issues that fall within his jurisdiction. I hear him ask why. I guess he just doesn't understand that the purpose of debate in this Legislature is to ensure that there is a dialogue, that ministers are accountable for actions within their ministries and that not one penny within their budget be approved until such time as the Legislature is satisfied that the money is being expended in a fashion to serve the interests of this province well.

In keeping with that, there are all sorts of questions which a Provincial Secretary should have to answer. There are matters relating to the allocation of lottery funds and offshore sales of lottery tickets, which is a significant issue. I find it interesting that this government talks tough all the time on matters of crime and law and order, and yet we have in this province the criminal element, as has been evident in this House by earlier debate, involved in the sale of offshore lottery tickets. Other jurisdictions in Canada have indicated that they want to put an end — and have, through legislation — to the sale of offshore lottery tickets. One jurisdiction stands out as one that hasn't done that — British Columbia, notwithstanding that there was a recommendation from a committee consisting of representatives from every province insisting that British Columbia put an end to that practice. Yet this government hasn't taken action in that regard. Surely the Provincial Secretary should have to explain why the government will continue to allow an activity to go on here in British Columbia that other jurisdictions, such as Ontario, have deemed to be unlawful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not really a debate between two members on these issues. Members wishing to participate in debate need only wait to be recognized by the Speaker. In the meantime, if you would just address the Chair, it would be more helpful than to try to provoke other members who might otherwise be quiet.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the Provincial Secretary should have to answer for those kinds of policies and for some of the budgetary decisions being made within his ministry. The purpose is to make sure that he isn't subject to that type of cross-examination and to the spotlight of scrutiny. Surely to God, the minister should have to answer for his actions and not do exactly what the Provincial Secretary is doing — turning his back not on the speaker who's speaking now, but on the people of this province, by saying it's his budget and he can spend it whatever way he wants to.

I see the Minister Responsible for Crown lands sitting in this House. There are significant issues that fall under that minister. There are a number of issues that should be examined in the context of his budget and that we should discuss during debate, a debate that now will be denied — an opportunity to ask the minister responsible about some of the actions being

[ Page 13149 ]

taken by his ministry. I can think of a lot of them, some local ones....

[11:45]

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Listen, Mr. Minister, if you want to get into a debate on that issue, stand up on a motion of privilege, and I'll deal with you on it. All right? It's so typical of this government that when they feel the sting of political attack, they can't resist the temptation to engage in personal attack. Then, when they feel the sting of scrutiny, they walk away from their chair, leave this chamber and avoid having to get into debate. I'm not speaking so much to the minister, but I'll say, in a general way, that it is the action of a coward, Mr. Speaker, for anyone.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That's completely and absolutely unparliamentary, even coming from that member. I would never expect any hon. member, whoever he was speaking of, to call another member a coward in this House. I ask for a withdrawal.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, if he imputed any improper motive or any cowardly motive to any member, to withdraw forthwith.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to the practice, as opposed to the actions of any particular....

MR. SPEAKER: Please assure the House that you were not....

MR. SIHOTA: I can assure the House that I was not imputing an improper motive to any member.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. SIHOTA: I was speaking in terms of the actions of one who wishes to avoid scrutiny.

I see the Minister of Environment is in the House. At 9 o'clock tomorrow morning we should be dealing with his estimates in this House. He should have to answer to this House on questions that relate to his ministry and the actions taken by his ministry and the intentions of his ministry over the next year. As my colleague the member for Vancouver East indicated, so far he has avoided comment on a number of thorny issues dealing with environmental matters.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd ask the Minister of Environment to refrain from speaking in the House from any chair other than his own.

MR. SIHOTA: There are a galaxy of issues that need to be examined in this Legislature with respect to matters that fall under the purview of the Minister of Environment. None is as pressing as the whole matter of the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation and contracts let by that corporation. Details of arrangements between that minister, who has indicated in this House that there are certain claims, agreements and payments being made between him and others.... He has to answer for the expenditure of those funds and explain to the members of this House and to the taxpayers of this province why payments are being made in regard to matters that I've raised already in the House concerning that corporation.

The purpose of this motion is to ensure that one cannot put those questions to the Minister of Environment. For a government to avoid that scrutiny is the height of arrogance. That's what we're seeing from this administration. As I said earlier, it is arrogant to use the blunt instrument of this motion, and it is arrogant for anybody to think that they are allowed to take the taxpayers' resources and walk out of this House and spend that budget, as they will, without a moment of debate.

What kind of homage do they pay to those principles? I see that they've all left, every single one of the ministers in this House. In fact, only three members of the government remain in this House: the disgraced former Premier of British Columbia, who doesn't have to be subject to scrutiny, because he doesn't have a budget to administer anymore; the member for Langley, who is the only surviving member of Social Credit who hasn't served in the cabinet to date — an endangered species of sorts, who in his own.... I won't put it that way.

They've all left because they don't want to be here in this chamber; they don't want the scrutiny; they don't want to engage in the debate. They don't want to defend their actions; they don't want to explain their policies. My colleague for Nanaimo says: "Well, they can't." Maybe that's it; maybe they can't. But I suspect it goes way beyond that.

I suspect there's an absence of courage with respect to some of them in that regard — an unwillingness on their part to face up, and deal with some of the issues. For example we won't have an opportunity in this House to deal with the estimates of the Premier. We won't have the opportunity to ask the Premier a variety of questions with respect to policies that fall within her mandate.

We are sitting in this country today in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Surely the first minister of this province should have something to say about the province's position on a variety of constitutional issues. Where does the first minister of this House stand on issues such as a social and economic charter of rights? Surely the people of British Columbia have a right to know the Premier's position in regard to that kind of issue.

But she won't be scrutinized on that. She will not have to account for or explain the position her government may want to take around the constitutional table. We're sitting here six weeks away from a conference of Premiers to deal with those kinds of issues, ye t she's not going to be here to explain in this House to the people of the province, during the course of estimates debate, the position this government intends to take with respect to constitutional issues.

Interjection.

[ Page 13150 ]

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Forests is suggesting that.... Mr. Speaker, perhaps you may caution the member from Okanagan that if he wishes to heckle, he should go back to his seat and heckle. I know he has some ambition of sorts, and that's why he was sitting in the chair that he was. But the member who spent that undistinguished amount of time as the Minister of Environment — one of six Ministers of the Environment we've had in British Columbia over the last four years....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Once again, we are outside the scope of debate that would be permitted if we were in committee.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that this government is avoiding the scrutiny it should have with respect to a galaxy of issues. I was just talking about a number of constitutional issues. But there are a number of very important issues facing British Columbia on which the ministers need to account for and explain the positions they intend to take.

From my way of thinking, there is no greater threat to the economy of this province than the free trade deal with Mexico. It's a significant and incredible trade agreement that is being proposed between our nation and the United States and Mexico. British Columbians need to know what this government's position is with respect to that issue. People need to know what studies this government has done with respect to the free trade issue as it relates to Mexico. What kind of expenditures are being proposed by the ministers responsible for trade, tourism and international trade and immigration? What kind of expenditures are being planned to determine the implications of that agreement and its effect on communities throughout British Columbia? And what about the fear we all have that our raw resources in this province will be shipped south to Mexico to be processed and then sold in a manufactured way in the United States to their large consumer base?

MR. SERWA: That's pure rubbish, and you know better than that.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to get into a debate with the member from Okanagan. If he wants to get into debate on this issue, he should stand up and defend the actions of this government and defend this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's late. The Chair may become testy. I would ask the first member for Okanagan South to refrain from entering the debate until he is recognized by the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA: That free trade deal has incredible consequences and implications for British Columbia, yet this House will be denied the opportunity to address that matter, in the sense that it will not have the opportunity to deal with the minister directly in this House in terms of expenditures contemplated by his ministry. Mr. Speaker, the government has an obligation to attend to these concerns and to answer the questions being put in this House by the duly elected representatives. It takes courage to stand up and listen to what the opposition asks and answer it. Maybe after four and a half years of battering, they've decided to retreat. That raises a number of issues. In the course of that retreat we have seen policy after policy abandoned, changed, reversed, flipped and flopped around. One of my constituents said to me the other day: "It's a little bit like a retreating army that's burning every oilfield left in the way."

HON. MR. VEITCH: Even you don't sink that low.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not going to get into a debate with the Provincial Secretary.

There are a number of critical issues facing this province. I've laid out some that should be debated. We could also seek to raise a number of issues that reflect on our constituencies — important issues. I was pleased to see that my colleague from Vancouver East talked about shipbuilding. The people of this province, through this Legislature, need to know what this government is doing to lobby the federal government to reverse a decision on the allocation of 12 new ships to the eastern shipyards. What is their position? A few years ago this government indicated — when it was first elected in 1986 — that it had set up, through the then minister responsible for economic development, a task force that was going to go to Ottawa to lobby on procurement of federal contracts. Fair enough. It was a good idea; we applauded it at the time. In fact, the government went so far as to say that they needed to buy a jet to fly ministers and bureaucrats there to lobby the people in Ottawa with respect to that matter.

This government failed in its efforts to get us the icebreaker contract. But surely there ought to be an opportunity to examine ministers with respect to what is happening with the procurement of federal contracts. Again, the minister responsible for trade and economic development will not have to face that kind of scrutiny during debate in this Legislature. It's inappropriate, unacceptable and shameful that the government, in its retreat from this Legislature, is prepared to take these extraordinary measures to make sure that this kind of scrutiny will not occur. Shame on the government, its members and its ministers, who are prepared to support that action!

While I speak of jets, there are appropriate questions to ask in this House with respect to the utilization of government aircraft. We are in the midst of a leadership race, which, in part, explains why they want to retreat from this House. I see the Minister of Government Services in the House. They have an obligation to explain what's going on with the utilization of that government aircraft fleet. For example, the other day the Premier was in Quesnel using the government airplane. One of the events she attended was a Social Credit leadership meeting. I want to know what meeting warranted the utilization of the jet to go to Quesnel. When was that meeting? How long did it take? How much did it cost the taxpayer? What is the policy with respect to the utilization of those jets? The Minister of Government Services will not be subject to that scrutiny here, because the purpose of this motion is to avoid the debate. But at 9 o'clock in the morning,

[ Page 13151 ]

that's exactly what we should be doing. We should be asking: what happened the other day in Penticton when the government jet landed there? Is it the case that, apart from just ministers, there was a backbencher on that jet, getting off to attend a debate with respect to the leadership race?

[12:00]

HON. MRS. GRAN: Just ask.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says: "Just ask." I've been asking for months to have a constituent of mine flown down to the United States for essential medical services, and this government has said no.

That type of scrutiny is being denied under the provisions of this motion. That kind of dialogue is being denied. Those kinds of expenditures will be made without debate. That type of courage is lacking, and one can only wonder why this government wishes to do that. I say that at the end of the day, when all is said and done, this is an administration that is so arrogant, so contemptuous, so uncaring about the rules and traditions of this House that it is prepared to go to whatever lengths necessary to avoid that kind of scrutiny — and that's a shame.

MR. PETERSON: I rise to take my place in the debate. Certainly I would like to make some comments about the previous speaker, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who likes to use character assassination and any means he can to discredit anybody to achieve what he considers to be his political agenda. Sometimes I wonder if his constituents really want to consider what they elected for themselves to represent them in this House, because, quite frankly, I think a member like that does us all....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've got to remember that we are debating here tonight only those things which could normally be discussed in Committee of Supply. That means that personal attacks can't be discussed — only the administrative responsibility of ministers and the expenditure of funds. You can't discuss which portfolio a member should be from.... All those standard things are laid out in Sir Erskine May. So if the member would like to continue in order, the Chair is prepared to listen to the debate.

MR. PETERSON: I will follow your advice, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I did get a little carried away there, but understandably, I think.

I heard earlier in the debate on this motion a lot of talk about labour, and it's interesting that the previous member is still their labour critic, I believe, and that they should have in their caucus, I would think, at least four or five members who have a very close association with the B.C. Federation of Labour and organized labour in this province.

It's also interesting that I came across an editorial in the local Financial Times which asked the question: is Queen's Park to be the next bastion of labour? I bring this to the attention of British Columbians in this debate, because I think it's something they may well want to consider. Let me quote from the editorial:

"Premier Bob Rae appointed as his Minister of Labour a party stalwart who was a strong supporter of the labour movement before his entry into politics. The best indication, so far, of how keen the NDP is to tip the scales of collective bargaining in favour of unions can be gleaned from the ideas of Labour Minister Bob MacKenzie."

It goes on to say, to give a bit of an outlook on what they're talking about:

"They reveal an outlook more appropriate to a shop steward than to a minister of the Crown who has a duty to balance conflicting interests within society. If you accept the view that government is supposed to set fair rather than one-sided rules for the test of wills between management and labour, then many of MacKenzie's ideas are worrisome indeed.

"The Labour minister favours a regime under which moves by companies to contract out work would be illegal unless they were approved by the union.

"Then there is a rather wonky item dubbed 'justice and dignity protection.'"

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: I'm quoting the article. "Wonky" their words, not mine.

"Any employee dismissed by a company would stay on the payroll until an arbitration board had had an opportunity to rule on whether dismissal was justified. This raises the spectre of firms being forced to keep on paying, if not actually permitting on their premises, employees who are fired for gross misconduct. Would a trust company have to keep on paying the salary of a teller sacked for embezzlement until such time as an arbitration board got around to confirming the appropriateness of the dismissal?"

I would think there is a lot of cause for concern. The causes are here. They're here in black and white by an NDP government, currently the government of Ontario. I guess that brings us back to the age-old question: how much influence did this opposition caucus, the socialist NDP caucus, have on this...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're out of order again. It was a nice try, but you're quite a long way off this time. I must remind the member: if you're going to continue in this debate, you must be relative to the specific motion.

MR. PETERSON: I guess I was talking about policy, Mr. Speaker, and if I was out of order, I do apologize. It's no disrespect to the Chair. I get carried away in my zeal to point out to British Columbians the danger they are flirting with. Financial mismanagement; perhaps a bastion for labour; destruction of our economy — all these great things that the NDP government are bringing to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue bringing this to the attention of my constituents. I hope other members in this House bring it to the attention of their constituents. Don't be fooled by the intents of these people. We hear them get up and talk in this debate, and what do they offer? They really don't offer a thing. Nothing constructive, only destruction — that's all they can think about.

Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the opportunity to take my place in this debate, and look forward to additional dialogue with respect to this motion.

[ Page 13152 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have been listening to the debate since the government closed off our opportunity to deal with the people's business. In some ways I'm a little surprised at myself about what I'm going to say, because after four years and as a new member in this House, I never really thought I would get to the point of talking about the role of parliament. When I first came to this House, one of the more senior members told me that parliament was a system that was put in place to get the opposition off the streets, so that people could deal with the business of the country or province in a civilized manner, and so that people no longer had to fight out their differences in a physical manner. Instead, they could, through the electoral process, come to a place like this and debate their differences. In that way they could deal with the business of the province.

I have listened to the debate and learned a lot over the last four years. What has become increasingly clear to me is that while we often have a great deal of theatrics and pomp and ceremony in this House, and we would be hard-pressed to realize how a great deal of it is relevant to people's lives, the fact is that if we don't have a place like this where people can express the differences that they hold very strongly and fundamentally, then we really are going to have some problems as a society.

Many people in this province have joked about a government that is running out of time and is going into its fifth year. There are pools in offices out there as to whether or not this government will ever call an election.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have asked all other hon. members to stay in order. I have allowed you to stray quite some distance. The scope of debate is quite broad, but it must be within the terms of reference of the debate of the adjournment motion.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, on the motion before us, I think that the issue is the business of the House, the estimates and the power of the government to spend. I want to state as strongly as I can that what is happening here is far more serious than the breaking of a gentlemen's agreement and far more serious than the wanton abuse by the government of their powers. I believe it is putting at jeopardy the very institution that we were elected to represent. Through the estimates we've already had, I think it's very clear that the government, while relishing the apparatus of power that they represent, is not prepared to carry out the people's business, whether we're talking about the Ministries of Social Services, Health or Education that we've already dealt with or the estimates that we will not have an opportunity to deal with in this House — and whether we're dealing with the fact that the auditor-general has repeatedly called on this government to do its job, to account for the tax dollars they are spending and to ensure that the revenue is returned to the people of this province.

It's very clear that this government has a group of people who have sought government for the sole purpose of their own personal and group power dynamics, which has nothing to do with the delivery of the needs of the people of the province. What we've seen here is a blatant abuse of the power that they sought.

When we're talking about spending tax dollars, it's important for us to realize that the power this institution has exists only by virtue of the power the people give it. With the incredible abuses of their power from their being the majority in this House, the government are risking that the people of this province will no longer give credibility to this institution, will withdraw their support for the power of parliament and withdraw their support not only for this political party but for the political process as a whole. That is very serious, and I don't think that I'm overstating it by any means.

This is a sad day, and it's very hard to find the words necessary to really express what I think has happened over the last five years. There has been not only a deterioration of the government in this province, but a deterioration of the respect for this institution. Those are serious trends that I don't think any of us would look forward to.

We talked in some of the estimates about the youth in this province. This government and many of the people in the communities recognize that young people have somewhat given up on adults and our institutions, and have become increasingly violent.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again you have strayed a great deal from the debate. The debate is whether or not the House will come back at 9 o'clock in the morning or at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and that would be to debate items of supply. The policy issues and other issues that you're getting into may be interesting items for members to discuss, but this is not the appropriate time to do it. You may continue if you wish, in order.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Without question we are here to do the people's business, and we would be more than happy to come back at 9 o'clock to do that. But through the actions of this government today, it's blatantly obvious that the government themselves are not interested in doing the people's business. All we can do from the opposition side is to continue to fulfil our responsibility to the people of this province and hope that the institutions that we've been elected to represent are no further discredited before there can be an election.

[12:15]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I've waited here some time to speak on this debate, and I know the hour is late. I waited also for time to speak on the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing — hours while other members of my caucus questioned the estimates of that minister.

I would have been here to deal with the other estimates as well, because there are many important concerns in my constituency and throughout the province that I was elected to debate, as other members of this House were. People put us here for a reason, Mr. Speaker, and that reason is now being denied us by this government.

[ Page 13153 ]

We have questions about unemployment and welfare that I want to raise on behalf of my constituents. In my constituency over 1,200 people are going to be laid off. Some will get some unemployment insurance; others will be on welfare. I did not have an opportunity to question the Social Services and Housing minister as to what type of assistance those people might have, because there were other people on our side of the House, and some on that side of the House, who were taking up the time of the minister in order to put forth their questions.

I would like to have the opportunity to talk about the supply bills that are going to come before this House — billions of dollars that this government wants to spend without being questioned about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Once again, hon. members, I have to remind you that that is out of order.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The estimates that will be funded by a supply bill.... Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, I realize that I was out of line there, but the hour is late and I'm frustrated.

I'm frustrated because this government is denying democracy. It is denying us the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Labour about Bill 82, which they passed. It's denying us the opportunity to question the Minister of Forests who sits over there, who came to my constituency and said in front of a chamber of commerce meeting that the wood harvested in Alberni should be processed there; yet 400,000 cubic metres of that wood is leaving the Alberni Valley and is not being processed there. I want to know the answers, and that's being denied. We're facing massive unemployment because that minister removed sections from his ministry that dealt with supplying jobs with tenure.

I want to question on behalf of the people who voted for me. They expect me to do that job and I'm being denied — they are being denied — that opportunity. I would like to question the Minister of Government Services, who's in the House, as to whether she's made any more trips to the United States and done any more cross-border shopping.

I would like these ministers to take that debate seriously. As a matter of fact, I'm amazed that the ministers of that government don't stand up and ask for their right, that their ministries be debated; that they don't stand up and say: "I don't want to spend money out of my ministry that hasn't been democratically allocated by this House." They're not taking part in this debate, because they approve of that kind of action. They don't want estimates; they want to live on borrowed money and borrowed time. They won't get up and fight for democracy in this province and for their ministries to be debated here.

Native Affairs. I have a sizeable native community in my constituency. They want to know what's happening to land claims. They want to know what's happening to that ministry. They want to know how long they will be denied taking their rightful place in British Columbia.

The estimates of the Ministry of Environment won't be debated in this House — important issues like the Clayoquot Sound. I want to know why the ministry approved spending for one community and not others; why the deputy minister wrote a cheque for $60,000 to one community in my riding and said to the other communities: "Sorry, there's no funding. We won't treat you equally." They've written letters on that matter, and they want the answers. They've asked me to come to those estimates and get those answers, and we're being denied that.

The Premier, president of the executive council, has some questions to answer to this House. She's not here for these debates. We can only ask why she's not here and why she's not quarterbacking this. Or has it been taken out of her hands? Perhaps we won't be discussing her estimates here either, because she doesn't want to come into this House and say where she's going, who's paying the Premier's salary and how much of that salary she draws is being used for political purposes, so that she can go around and try to become the legitimate Premier of this province rather than the interim Premier. She wants the anointment.

If this scenario continues in the House I'm afraid we'll end up, if we're denied the estimates, with the youth of this province looking at that denial of democracy and saying: "Why should I bother to go to the polls?" We'll end up like our American cousins, where less than 50 percent of the people bother to vote.

That's what we're debating here: whether or not due process shall take place and whether we shall set that example. Again, I say to those members opposite: remember why you're here and who put you here. I ask those ministers to stand up and demand that their estimates be debated here. If they refuse to do that, they should resign.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: As I understand it, we're debating whether or not we should adjourn until tomorrow at 9 a.m. If I understand correctly the members who have spoken, they're concerned because some of their members haven't had an opportunity to speak in the estimates that have been debated and perhaps won't get an opportunity to debate estimates still to come. That's a legitimate concern that should be seriously considered and addressed.

Since television came into this House in this session I've watched and noted that only about three members across the way ever get an opportunity to stand up and debate in the House. I'm not certain what kind of discipline you impose on yourselves. Perhaps if we picked a portion of each day without television, it would give some of the other members across the way a chance to speak. The member for Alberni could keep his neck brace on and hop up once in a while, and the other folks would let him speak if there was no television around. When we look across the way there are other members that I don't think are often allowed — by whatever regulates your organization across the way — an opportunity to speak. I would like to see each one of those members have an opportunity to stand and take a turn and debate.

But that's a decision I would suggest is made by the members opposite. For example, we debated the estimates for the Minister of Health in excess of 20 hours. If some of them weren't allowed to speak, that is a

[ Page 13154 ]

decision I assume was made by the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly it was not our choice which members would speak. Each and every one of them had an opportunity to speak.

But there's some discipline that goes on. Perhaps the folks don't look so good on television or don't talk so well on television, so the suggestion is: don't stand up while the TV set is on. Now at 12:30 at night, while the TV is off, those members have an opportunity to express themselves. The poor second member for Cariboo is asleep now, because he knows that he won't often have an opportunity to speak in the House. Perhaps someone could give him a little nudge there just so that he won't miss out on this debate. But there are other members. The member for Atlin, who won't be back again, should have an opportunity to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about your critic? What happens to her?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: My critic should also have an opportunity now and then, and should join in on issues that affect her constituency.

If the members opposite aren't having an opportunity to speak, perhaps what they should do is approve this motion to adjourn, go back and caucus and maybe draw numbers. Maybe they could have everybody throw their business cards in a hat and, tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, draw a number or a card out. If your chance came up, whether or not you look good on TV, you could have a turn — give a little bit of a speech, have something you could send out to the folks at home.

There are only a few days left, and those of you who haven't had an opportunity to speak....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources can continue after the Chair advises all members that, despite the fact that the television is not operating, Sir Erskine May's rules still apply. We are not allowed to read magazines, newspapers or periodicals in our place in the House. The members of the second estate have been highly critical of this chamber recently, so I would remind members who are displaying reading material other than approved reading material to put it away.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Certainly those who hadn't had an opportunity to speak displayed some considerable alarm at the thought that time was running out for them. I look around at the members who aren't here perhaps even more than those that are here — at those who obviously are prevented somehow from speaking. I would suggest that the members across the way caucus and sort out this little problem that they have regarding who speaks and who doesn't.

We certainly are prepared to listen to any of them. Some of them — as you would know, Mr. Speaker — are a little harder to listen to than others, and that's something that we will bow our heads to and accept as part of the penance of being a member of this Legislature.

[12:30]

However, that is a decision made by those managers who got these fellows their new blue suits, had them start parting their hair in the middle and doing the things that are supposed to make them look a bit more attractive on television. It worked for some; on others it was — I'm sorry to say — a dismal failure. But for some of you it worked very well.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would support the motion to adjourn, and I hope the members across the way will as well. They've got some problems in their caucus to sort out, and tonight would be as good a time as any to do it.

MR. MILLER: We're debating a motion put by the government on the heels of some pretty explicit advice from the government House Leader that they intend to shut this place down and restrain the right of the opposition to engage in the time-honoured tradition of asking questions of ministers about their spending estimates.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources belittles the issue. It's not how a member looks — that has nothing to do with it. It's not how a member is able to speak — that has nothing to do with it. It is the right of the member, on behalf of the people who elected him, to quiz you, as a minister of the Crown, on your spending estimates. That's what's at stake here. The member belittles the issue, and he displays the contempt that all members on that side are displaying today as they bring in closure and restrict the right of the opposition to debate legitimate issues. If he thinks it's funny, I invite him to do the same kind of clown act when the cameras are on. Display yourself to your constituents, Mr. Member.

There is a tendency, no doubt, to engage in hyperbole at these times, when we talk about the time honoured traditions of parliament and the right — indeed, the duty — of the opposition to quiz the government on their spending plans and a wide range of their policies. Since I've been elected to this chamber we have gone through the estimates debate of every minister in 1987, in 1988, in 1989 and in 1990. For four years running we went through all the spending estimates; not once did we get this kind of lecture about it taking too much time.

Mr. Speaker, they display other motives for bringing this motion before the House, and I might add that they display at the same time that there's absolutely no difference — not one shred of difference — between any of the people putting themselves forward as leadership candidates. As we heard the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain say in defence of the motion of closure....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm afraid I have admonished all other members to try and stay somewhat in order on the matters we're discussing, which are matters we would normally discuss in Committee of Supply. Therefore, members who are not members of the executive council, and their actions, are not subject to discussion.

MR. MILLER: One would assume that they shortly would be in another forum. What I was trying to point

[ Page 13155 ]

out is that there is absolutely no difference on the other side, despite having heard from members in the cabinet about — I suspect — whimsical notions about free votes and having.... That member who spoke before me, who talked about the need to have regular sittings and a timetable in this House, clearly belies that sentiment with the foolish statements he's made today.

Mr. Speaker, I was struck with what can happen during the estimates debate, because in 1987, in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the opposition brought to light the fact that there had been a massive overrun on the Coquihalla Highway That came out of the estimates debate, Mr. Speaker. They are important debates. That led to a commission of inquiry in this province. It led, hopefully, to reforms in the practices of the ministry. Those are important issues that we canvassed during estimate debates. It's not some foolish exercise we're going through here. There's a meaning to this, and this government is proposing to restrict and to confine and to end these debates.

Mr. Speaker, I have a list of 20-odd topics in terms of my preparation for the debate that I thought and expected — and rightfully expected — that I would engage in with the Minister of Forests during his estimates. And we manage to have a very civilized debate. I have 20 topics of critical importance to the people of this province in one of the most critical industries in this province. We are on the verge of massive change. We have reports recommending significant change. Those issues need to be canvassed in this Legislature.

If you talk about people in this province, and if you talk about recent polls, the Spicer commission being one, that said that the public has lost confidence in politicians, small wonder! Here we have a group of elected politicians, a government that is proposing to cut and run — exactly what we said you would do,

The reasons are obvious, Mr. Speaker. This government is in total and complete chaos and disarray. They don't seem to be able to make decisions. It's obvious to me after sitting in this House for even the short length of time that I've been here. I've seen a degeneration on the government side that I'm sure is unparalleled in the history of this province, and despite the best efforts of some of the backbenchers who occasionally rise, it's all for naught, and we have come to this sad and sorry end where the government is proposing to cut and run

I would remind the members on the government side that in fact they may be having to finish this estimates debate. It might be members on their side who are in the opposition and who will have to finish this debate, and I'm confident that they will then put the same kinds of arguments.

Mr. Speaker, the other members of my caucus have canvassed the kinds of issues that would normally be raised in estimates debate if we were not faced with this closure....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources continues to belittle the process. I thought that having been admonished he had learned something, but it's pretty clear that they're beyond learning.

They're in a quandary. They don't know who to support. They don't even know who's going to run. They want to get out of here. They want to avoid the embarrassment. They want to avoid the scrutiny of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to propose an amendment. I'm going to propose, for this tired, sad and sorry gang, a couple of days off. I think they need to collect their thoughts. I think they're making decisions in haste. I think they're making wrong decisions. They need to be removed from the fire and from the pressure of this place for a few days, so they can pull themselves together, have a quiet talk in the backroom and hopefully come to their senses and get back in this House to do the business they were elected to do.

Therefore I would move an amendment to the motion before the House that we remove the reference to 9 a.m. tomorrow and substitute the following words: "10 a.m., Tuesday, July 2, 1991."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Speaking against the amendment, the member gets up and rants and raves about doing the business of the public and then proposes some time off. They really don't know what they want on that side of the House. They have had ample debate on the supply bill that's in front of the House. We have heard all kinds of debate tonight on why we shouldn't adjourn until 9 a.m., and now after talking about doing the work of the people and being afraid to face the television cameras, they propose three, four or five days off. It's typical of the NDP opposition.

I firmly believe the House should deal with this amendment as quickly as possible.

MR. PERRY: Speaking on the amendment, I'm tired, Mr. Speaker, as are you and other members. But I have been listening carefully to the debate, including the speech by the hon. member for Prince Rupert in moving the amendment. With all respect, the government House Leader has completely misconstrued the intent of the amendment. The intent was very clear as enunciated by the member for Prince Rupert. The intent is to give the government time to reconsider its ways. Only yesterday the government introduced a ridiculous bill which was later withdrawn and never brought to second reading. Intelligent argument by the member for New Westminster — the Education critic for the opposition — obviously persuaded members opposite to listen for one of the rare times they have in their government.

They have the opportunity now to listen to the points made by members on this side of the Legislature and by the member for Prince Rupert in moving his amendment. Let them take a few days off. Let them attend, if they wish, the meeting at which the first member for Vancouver Little Mountain will announce her glorious future to the province. We know that's the principal matter that occupies their interest at the

[ Page 13156 ]

moment. Let them find out what the former Premier intends to do, what the Minister of Social Services and Housing intends to do and what any other unknowns in the back rooms of the Social Credit Party intend to do by the deadline for their leadership contest on Thursday afternoon. Then once their attention is focused again on the business of the public, let us resume the House.

The point we're trying to make is that there is important business to be done. There are 20 estimates yet to be debated. There are many serious matters of weighty import to be discussed. Believe it or not, there are even useful and constructive suggestions to be made by members of the opposition, as were being made during the Health estimates debate which was so rudely and unexpectedly curtailed by the government. The Minister of Health, on many occasions during that debate, acknowledged that opposition members, including the member for Prince Rupert, made useful suggestions which could assist the functioning of government in the public interest.

Members on this side have made clear to the government House Leader and to other members of the government side our willingness to earn our salaries by continuing to constructively debate the estimates. Let no one mistake our argument, that we wish to stay here all night. Like other members, I would like to go home to bed now and be refreshed to resume the debate at an appropriate time. The member for Prince Rupert has made a useful suggestion that we cool things down for a few days, let the government members collect their thoughts and refresh themselves in the company of their constituents, who will undoubtedly tell them what they think of this charade.

[12:45]

HON. MR. FRASER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer the member to standing order 43, which talks about being tedious and repetitious. We've heard the same sentence over and over again.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Chair was allowed to interpret standing order 43 the way the Chair would prefer to interpret standing order 43, we would have all been out of here a long time ago.

MR. PERRY: There's no worse offence at this time of night than being tedious and repetitious. Even a hint of one member on the government side thinking I was being tedious and repetitious will convince me to sit down. I've obviously made my point.

MR. GABELMANN: On the amendment, very briefly... I want to wind up the debate on behalf of the official opposition by simply saying to the government House Leader that the intent of the amendment proposed by the member for Prince Rupert is not to have a few days off but rather to fix and define the time when we will come back to debate the business of this House.

We're suggesting that it's clear the government thinks the House should adjourn by Friday and has given no indication whatsoever of the date it will come back. If the government had said that we will come back on July 22, one could understand what the motivation had been for the adjournment. We wouldn't accept it totally, but three weeks off for the cabinet to try to make sure that the member for Little Mountain doesn't win would have been understandable. We would have understood why the cabinet was attempting to do that.

The cabinet didn't do that. The government didn't suggest to the House that they would come back on July 22 or maybe a few days later, so they could get rid of the effects of the weekend of the 20th. They didn't do that.

MR. ROSE: Their lost weekend.

MR. GABELMANN: Their lost weekend. Since the government isn't proposing a procedure by which we can do the public's business, we are. We're proposing that the public's business be delayed for two or three days while the government collects its thoughts, works out how it wants to deal with the public's business and comes back at 10 a.m. on Tuesday. Two p.m. would be fine too; it doesn't matter — but the proposal is 10 a.m. on Tuesday so we don't waste any time.

Our proposal simply has to do with the way that we believe this Legislature should conduct the public's business. Clearly the government does not believe the public's business should be conducted in this Legislature by the elected members; otherwise we would have been given the date in July or August. We haven't had that date.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear by the government's actions, by their refusal to even accept a motion such as the one presented by the member for Prince Rupert or a similar motion proposing another date, that they have made a decision that they cannot stand the scrutiny of public debate on their record.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 27

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:54 a.m.