1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 24
[ Page 14233 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
J. Doyle: Today I'm pleased to have from my hometown of Golden, in the riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke, Dave Webb and his son Patrick and daughter, Alison, visiting the gallery. I'd like those members here to make them welcome.
EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. A. Charbonneau presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Hon. Speaker, the bill before you contains amendments to the Independent School Act, the School Act and the Teaching Profession Act. The amendments to the Independent School Act will require independent school authorities to provide, at the request of the College of Teachers, all documentation relating to the dismissal, suspension, discipline or resignation of a teacher who is a member of the College of Teachers and is employed by the independent school. This amendment parallels a similar amendment to the School Act.
The amendments to the School Act relate to distance education schools, the accreditation of schools, trustee vacancies, and, most significantly, they put into law the provisions of the new funding formula, reflecting the changes made to the way provincial funding is allocated to school districts. Finally, amendments are proposed to the Teaching Profession Act to enable the College of Teachers to terminate the membership and cancel the teaching certificate of individuals who automatically became members of the college when the act was proclaimed into force in 1988, but have not paid their annual membership fees. This will permit the college to screen those individuals and to ensure that all persons who teach in the public schools of British Columbia are professionally qualified and of suitable character.
Bill 23 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. E. Cull tabled the report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Public Service) Act during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994.
INVESTMENTS FOR WORKING FAMILIES
A. Hagen: This is Child Care Month, and it's a time to chronicle and celebrate the investments of our government in support of working families and their children. As a government, New Democrats made an early commitment to plan and deliver more and better child care in British Columbia. With almost four out of five mothers working and contributing to our buoyant economy, with 70 percent of these mothers raising children under 12 years of age and with close to four out of five women with infants and preschool children working or in post-secondary education, our government knew we needed to invest in affordable child care.
We have made those investments to support working families. I and every member of this Legislative Assembly should feel proud of what we have accomplished in three years. There are 13,000 new child care spaces since 1991, and with more planned, I hope that by 1996 we will have 60,000 licensed spaces in B.C. Grants for equipment, repair and renovations helped child care providers improve the quality of existing spaces. Equally important, matching grants from the Women's Equality ministry helped to build and renovate new child care spaces.
Both of these initiatives are designed to also keep the cost affordable for parents. Through partnerships and coordination with other ministries, existing land and space in schools, hospitals, colleges and government buildings are being used to create new spaces at a reasonable cost.
Subsidies for lower-income working parents keep child care costs within their ability to pay. Twenty-nine thousand children, including 3,000 additional children in the last year, receive subsidies to keep the cost of child care affordable. Grants specifically targeted to infants and toddlers ensure that parents of these very young children have child care spaces and can afford them. And we're opening new spaces each year for special needs preschoolers -- 123 such spaces last year alone. We all know that child care workers have been among the lowest-paid workers in our society, and a wage supplement program for these workers has produced two excellent results: reduced staff turnover and an infusion of new child care workers who are attracted to this career because wages are better.
So what are the benefits of our child care plan and these investments in quality, affordable care? First and foremost, children benefit. They are cared for by trained workers in safe, stimulating and healthy environments, they develop friendships with children in their community and there are support networks for the parents of these children. I have read a cost-benefit analysis that shows that for every dollar we invest in child care, taxpayers save $4 to $6 in future costs of education, health and welfare or of people who are involved with crime. What's more, we know that there is greater job productivity among parents whose children are in good-quality day care spaces.
Parents benefit. They benefit in a way unique in British Columbia, because we are the only province that allows parents who receive subsidies to choose the child care that they wish for their children. I have noted that we have tried to keep child care affordable, whether for single- or two-parent families. And most important, of course, there is that peace of mind in knowing that your child is well cared for while you work or study.
Our community benefits. Space for after-school programs has been added -- a cost-effective way of providing care. With close-to-home child care spaces, people are better able to work and take care of their family responsibilities.
[ Page 14234 ]
Child care creates jobs not only for the 4,500 child care workers but for construction workers building and renovating centres, for equipment manufacturers and for suppliers. Men and women, parents of children in care, offer their skills to our economy -- train and retrain to participate in our changing economy. All of these child care initiatives come as a result of a government which established a goal, developed a plan and then got on with investing in working families, their children and our economy.
Let me just conclude this portion of my remarks by noting that the Liberal government in Ottawa, in its last budget, abandoned any commitment to child care -- zero in the budget, the red book abandoned and the Canada Assistance Plan, which has provided support for child care, going out the door next year. The contrast between these promises -- these hollow promises -- and our government's achievements is one that I think is noteworthy. We believe in investing in children, in families and in the future of our economy, and our child care program is designed for that purpose.
V. Anderson: I'm pleased that following the hon. Speaker's admonition to us in the last couple of weeks in regard to private members' statements, the member had been totally non-political in her presentation this morning. All she has done is indicate that all the things that have been done have been done by the NDP; then she's only gone after the federal government, so far. I'm glad she has been non-political in her presentation, because that certainly elevates and gives more perspective to our private members' statements as we deal with issues.
[10:15]
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Sure we're political, but in the time and place.
I do appreciate, though, that the hon. member has brought forth the area of child care, because child care is a very fundamental concern for all of us within all of our communities. I would hope that we would not only provide child care spaces outside the home, but also work with that program to enable support for those children in relation to their parents. There is a need to bring together parents and children, because when parents are working and also caring for children -- and it's not just single-parent families, but particularly single-parent families -- there is a great deal of extra pressures on them and tensions in their lives.
It seems to me that the program can be upgraded, if you like, to provide support for the relationships between those children and their parents on an ongoing basis. This kind of program is a wonderful opportunity for us to interrelate and to give additional support.
Also, I think there is an opportunity -- and perhaps we have not followed up on it as much as we might -- to give consideration to parents who are staying at home and have an opportunity to take another child into care in their home if they were aware that there are programs where they could get the skills and recognition to care for their children in their home and in their community. I know there are some programs in this regard; I'm also very much aware that there are many people who would take advantage of this opportunity and provide neighbourly home care in addition to what we are doing now. At the same time it would provide an additional income, a source of employment and recognition for many mothers who are staying at home caring for their own children and who are able to undertake this program as well.
We might also look at many single grandparents who are living at home and who would be able to do the same kind of program as volunteer grandparents. They could do it in a more accredited and recognized way, and increase the opportunity for intergenerational support and contact, which would be a wonderful way. In the past, many families did leave their children with their grandparents, who supported them, but in our urban developments, many families do not have grandparents in their communities. If there were an opportunity to tie together some of the seniors in our communities who are very well experienced and qualified to provide care in their homes or to go to the homes of others as caregivers, this could be a wonderful opportunity to extend the opportunity for more adults to be involved in child care -- as well as children. It would set up a series of relationships that could be very beneficial to all those involved and very helpful to the community that the minister has referred to -- and properly so.
As well as thinking of formal child care programs and the extension of those as they are needed, there are other methods of extending the programs so they can be beneficial to all concerned.
A. Hagen: I thank the member for his comments. I would just note that I commented in my remarks that all Members of the Legislative Assembly will celebrate these achievements, and I will repeat those comments at the end of my remarks. I would also encourage the member to read about the child care programs that are available, because many of the proposals that he made are indeed a part of our wide-ranging child care programs. There are opportunities for parents to become a part of child care services in their own homes.
I want to just note that in the context of my own constituency, there are 33 centres in our small community that receive support from the Women's Equality ministry -- plus many other avenues for information and training. We have one of the highest ratios of child care spaces to population, and our child care needs in the province.... Under our government, there are two new centres: one at the hospital -- our largest employer; it's a beautiful centre -- and one at the secondary school, which is run by the Lower Mainland Purpose Society. It is for young students to get training as parents as well as to finish their education.
As I noted, there are 33 other centres in the city. A new centre that is being planned.... I was happy to present a cheque this week for part of the cost of a centre in a housing complex in the downtown area, where there are no services at present. There are 100 new spaces since 1991 and close to 1,000 spaces altogether. This means that working men and women in New Westminster working in the city of New Westminster or beyond have child care close to home. There are also extensive supports for parents and for child care workers to develop new ideas and new concepts of child care, as the member mentioned. I would really encourage him to read the Women's Equality child care booklet, which outlines those services, and some of their information pamphlets.
As one child care worker said to me this week: "Your government has been good to child care centres, and our children and workers have greatly benefited." I conclude by
[ Page 14235 ]
once again noting that all members of this assembly can feel satisfied that our plan and its results are wise investments in our future. They benefit children, they benefit our economy, and we, as a government and as the Legislative Assembly, need to maintain those commitments and those investments. They're important to all of us and are among the best investments that we make with the tax dollars of which we are stewards.
R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: Today in the precincts we have several adults and 44 visitors from grade 6 at Robertson Annex. Mr. Bridgefoot has brought them here to learn about our parliament and how it operates. I would hope that you would make them most welcome.
CELEBRATING A SUCCESS TO ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE:
A TRIBUTE TO SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
A. Warnke: The subject I want to address today is one I've entitled "Celebrating a Success to Advanced Knowledge: A Tribute to Simon Fraser University." Later this year, on September 9, Simon Fraser University will be celebrating 30 years since its opening on that day in 1965. For me personally, that day was one of those days in my life which really stood out; I remember it well. I remember the presence of Premier W.A.C. Bennett on stage. Indeed, I actually had the opportunity to have a good long conversation with him later that day. Chancellor Gordon Shrum and President Patrick McTaggart-Cowan were also present. I remember the eloquence of the UBC president of the day, John B. Macdonald, and certainly the roar of the students, faculty and visitors at the lifting of the claymore by Lord Lovat, the direct descendant of Simon Fraser.
Chancellor Shrum expressed that Simon Fraser University would be "a peaceful mountaintop where students will have the chance to think and study." I guess Simon Fraser University very soon developed quite a different reputation that was not very good, in the long analysis -- perhaps I may describe that later.
Upon reflection, a later statement was made that Simon Fraser University was founded on optimism: the optimism of the 1960s, the optimism of Premier Bennett that all things were possible, and the optimism of Chancellor Shrum that he could get things done -- and he did that; the fact that this university would be unique and special, and for a generation of students who also thought that they could change the world.
With its architecture, the university established itself as something unique in the world, and certainly in the global academic community, right off the bat. The distinct architecture of the main campus, symbolized by the academic quadrangle which was originally designed by Arthur Erickson and Geoffrey Massey, has made Simon Fraser University unique in the world -- even a venue for many motion pictures. It's interesting that once in a while you pop into a theatre, and you recognize the surroundings around you.
My own reflection, which I'm sure is shared by graduates of that university, is that we're very proud to have attended this university and graduated from it. As is the case with one's first employment, one's first university or college education can be the most important event in the shaping of a career. Among my choices, I can honestly say, in retrospect, that I never had any regrets about enrolling as a charter student at Simon Fraser University.
Simon Fraser established its reputation very quickly in the 1960s as the radical university of the Canadian academic community. I don't deny that there were some stressful times; nonetheless, they were interesting. Upon reflection, I know one philosopher, Prof. Lewis Feuer, who once put it that sometimes it's the conflict of generations that can be most stimulating in terms of providing an academic climate for increased knowledge and for questioning where our society is going. In other words, sometimes that kind of atmosphere can be tremendously fertile. Indeed, it was Feuer's thesis, which he explored in his book The Conflict of Generations, that the most significant scientific breakthroughs and some of the most profound philosophical breakthroughs occur in an environment that is tremendously fertile, as was the one that we saw in the 1960s.
But Simon Fraser is much more than that, and it has been proven since. From a student enrolment of 2,500 in 1965, it now has an enrolment of more than 20,000 students. Simon Fraser University has an alumni of more than 40,000 graduates, and that would include more than 31,000 undergraduates -- that is, graduates with a bachelor's degree. Simon Fraser University has been known for tremendous innovations. Right off the bat, I guess one innovation was the adoption of the trimester program. This was a tremendous innovation, which I believe other universities should follow. Another one was symbolized most poignantly in 1974 with the appointment of Pauline Jewett, a former colleague of mine. The late Pauline Jewett was the first female president of a major university. Its most recent innovation was the adoption of the Harbour Centre campus, which I consider a tremendously positive innovation. It serves more than 50,000 people annually, including more than 2,000 undergraduates each semester. All this was financed by the private sector to the tune of about $23 million.
There is much more I would like to comment on, perhaps in some of my concluding remarks. But before I do, one innovation was the recent call by Simon Fraser's administration students and faculty for a commission of inquiry to assess the impact of the proposed changes to Canadian universities. It's on this that the reputation of Simon Fraser University has been built. In the last 30 years they always seemed to have been at the forefront. In that context, it certainly is an institution worth celebrating.
Finally, there are some tremendously profound people who have received Governor General's awards and the Pulitzer prize. The late Prof. Ernest Becker, my former colleague in sociology, received the Pulitzer prize for his exploration of death. I could go on about the number of professors and other students who have graduated, but I'll leave that for a bit later.
[10:30]
[ Page 14236 ]
B. Jones: I appreciate this opportunity to celebrate a very important British Columbia institution that has contributed greatly to this province over the last 30 years. Not only has it contributed greatly, but it has touched my life personally in a profound way and the lives of many British Columbians, including members of this chamber.
I might ask: where were you in September 1965? If you were myself or the member for Richmond-Steveston or the member for Prince George-Mount Robson, you were winding your way up to the top of Burnaby Mountain to be inspired by the Arthur Erickson architecture, to be excited to be part of a brand-new institution of higher learning and to be proud of an institution that was going to become one of the most progressive institutions in this country. My purpose for being there was to attend a very progressive teacher-training program initiated originally at Harvard: the professional development program. Those three members were followed by a number of others, including the Minister of Government Services, the Minister of Employment and Investment, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the official opposition House Leader, the member for Port Coquitlam, the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, the member for Surrey-White Rock and the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. Surprisingly, many of these students took political science courses. Of course, they all profited from those courses in varying degrees.
Other important former students were Ken Dye, John Sawatsky, Jim Fulton, Barbara Rae, Lui Passaglia and, probably most significantly, Terry Fox. The faculty has had an outstanding record and has won numerous honours. It attracts $19 million annually to this province in terms of research funding, and these are funds primarily from outside British Columbia. The faculty now includes the former Attorney General, Alec Macdonald, and the former Premier of this province, Dave Barrett.
Simon Fraser University was in my constituency between 1986 and 1991, and as MLA and Advanced Education critic, I enjoyed working closely with the students' society there and with Bill Saywell, the former president. I must add that I have several times had the opportunity to meet the current president, John Stubbs, and I think British Columbia is very fortunate in attracting educational leaders like Dr. Stubbs and the other university presidents, who are managing very well in extremely difficult times.
One of the things I learned as Advanced Education critic is the tremendous advantage to a community and a region of having a university. Simon Fraser contributes $412 million annually in terms of economic activity and provides 5,900 full-time jobs to the region. There is no question that Simon Fraser is one of Canada's top academic institutions. It ranked first among Canada's comprehensive universities in 1993, and third last year in the Maclean's magazine poll.
British Columbia has long prospered from the rich bounty of natural resources in this province, but we all recognize that our economy must move from a resource-based to a knowledge-based economy. Institutions like Simon Fraser are going to play an increasingly important role in the economy of this province. I know that when the members opposite criticize the debt of this province, they don't really believe that the investment of $600 million over the last 30 years in Simon Fraser and $60 million in the last couple of years in that important institution were moneys that were poorly spent. I think they recognize that those were wise investments in the future prosperity of our province.
I hope all members would join me in two wishes: one, in urging the federal government to reconsider their desire to end funding for post-secondary education, and two, to congratulate Simon Fraser University on 30 years of significant contributions to this province.
A. Warnke: I want to extend my thanks to the member for Burnaby North. His comments more than well complemented what I want to say in my concluding remarks. I will keep them short, because to a certain extent, I don't just want to repeat what he had to say. Those were very good words indeed.
Since we may not be sitting later in the year, the purpose of my remarks is to reflect on the accomplishments of Simon Fraser University in the last 30 years. As I was saying just before I broke off my remarks, there have been a number of contributions by professors and by undergraduates. Some of the undergraduates have gone on to do some very bright things later on, and that includes the athletes who have attended Simon Fraser University. I can remember Bob Molle and Lui Passaglia, who of course everyone knows, plus Dave Cutler, Michelle Hendry, and, as the member of Burnaby North mentioned, Terry Fox. There are tremendous contributions here, and from the faculty as well, with professors like Bryan Beirne, John Borden, Manfred Mackauer and Prof. Steve McShane, who lately received an award, and from graduates such as Kenneth Dye and others.
Simon Fraser University is certainly more than just a university. It has established a tremendous reputation, and it is very well recognized throughout the world and throughout the academic community everywhere. It's a contribution that I think all of us, at this time, when it reaches its 30-year anniversary and is reflecting on its 30 years of accomplishment.... I think all British Columbians are proud of Simon Fraser University and its accomplishments, and all British Columbians want to applaud and, at this time, extend congratulations to Dr. John Stubbs, the president of Simon Fraser University, all of the alumni -- graduates of the university -- and, as well, present members of the university -- all the undergraduates and faculty. On this occasion, let us celebrate the 30 years of Simon Fraser University.
INVESTING IN PEOPLE: SKILLS, JOBS AND OUR FOREST ECONOMY
J. Doyle: I'm pleased this morning to speak in private members' statements on people, skills, jobs and our forest industry. I'd like to, first of all, recall some recent history in our forest industry in the last 30 to 40 years. In the past years governments, in order to try to get more jobs out of the forest industry, upped the annual allowable cut. What happened, by and large, was that at the same time, companies which have to compete in the province and in the world put in machinery -- that's fine -- and jobs went down. So upping the annual allowable cut in different areas of the province was not the answer to creating more jobs from that publicly owned resource. In the past 20 years we've lost 30,000 workers in the forest industry at the same time as the cut was going up.
[ Page 14237 ]
Just to quote from some documents I was researching in the last couple of days, a senior official in the Bill Bennett government said that forestry was a sunset industry. He also said that people didn't care about forestry; there were no votes in it. So much for political leadership, I say. An analysis in the early eighties showed a 70 percent reduction in provincial forestry funding. Silviculture dollars -- way too many of them -- went into general revenue. We, as British Columbians out in the area that I represent or in our province, are paying the price today for what former governments have done. The ones who will pay the biggest price are our children and their children.
What has our government done in the last four years to try to catch up to some of the errors of years past? Under our government, the Minister of Forests says that forestry is a sunrise industry. We've initiated forest renewal, in conjunction with the forest companies in the province. That is an agreement between the companies in the industry -- the workers, all people in the forest sector -- to collect $400 million per year in additional stumpage. Looking back to 1991-94 under this administration, there have been 14,000 new jobs created in the forest industry. That is up from 91,000 to 105,000.
As for forest renewal, I'd just like to quote from some of the reasons for that being set up and just what it will do for us and for the future. The investment priorities of Forest Renewal B.C. are to promote the productivity of B.C. forests through enhanced silviculture; restore and protect the forest environment; create more value and jobs from each tree; provide forest sector workers with the skills they need in a renewed forest industry; and strengthen forest communities.
The Minister of Forests has said that access to our publicly owned forests will be tied to jobs. The Minister of Forests in our government has restored section 56.01 of the Forest Act. That was taken away by the former government. For the information of those in the Legislature this morning, section 56.01 of the Forest Act means that if a company closes down a processing plant, the minister now -- again, rightfully so -- has the right to take a portion of their tenure or cutting rights away.
We've also had an all-party committee travelling throughout the province in the last couple of years, the value-added committee chaired by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston. I was a member of that committee because, by and large, a lot of communities in my riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke depend on the forest industry. The recommendation of that all-party committee was that we look at getting timber to the value-added sector. This value-added sector in our province has got orders. They have people who want to work at it and to put more dollars into the value-added sector. But they cannot get access to wood.
Last fall in Creston, in the riding of the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, we had a value-added sector conference. People from throughout the Kootenays -- these were one- and two-person companies, up to bigger ones -- travelled to that conference and spent a weekend. A lot of people brought exhibits of the work they do. There also were exhibits from the high schools as to what can be made out of very little and about some of the jobs that we are missing out on today.
The Kootenays have something, however, that I'm not very proud of. We have a lot of forests growing in our area; we have a lot of primary forest industry. But the Kootenays have the lowest amount of value-added sector in the province. That is something we have to work to change.
I'd like to quote from a speech that the Minister of Forests made. There was "A 2020 Vision for the Forest Sector," when the minister was speaking on March 15 to Price Waterhouse in Vancouver. The minister said:
"With respect to the employment target, I need to be as straightforward as I can be. I do not believe that I, as the Minister of Forests, can support a target to sustain the harvest levels in B.C. if it is not possible to couple that with a commitment to maintain employment levels in the forest sector. I do not believe it would be appropriate. But, more fundamentally, I doubt if it would have support from the public at large. Industry will need to buy into this if we are going to make all of this work.
"What will be the elements of making this feasible? Very simply, it will entail adding value throughout the forest product cycle: harvesting timber in a more careful and often more labour-intensive way; sorting logs comprehensively so they truly go to the highest and best use; more processing beyond the primary breakdown stage; and more intensive silviculture investment in future harvests."
[10:45]
M. de Jong: The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke -- and I thank him and appreciate his comments on this important subject -- began his address today by correctly identifying one inarguable fact. That is that we can do much more work with much less in the way of human resources. That is a fact. He related statistics pertaining to the last 20 years that are irrefutable.
He also highlighted the importance of addressing the concerns of those individuals who are concerned with maintaining a living in the forestry sector, to support their families and their way of life by working in forestry-related industries. That, in my view, is a very laudable goal, because forestry workers are no different than any other members of society, in that they derive a sense of independence and a sense of dignity from having a job and skills and being able to go out and put those skills to work. There is an empowerment there that flows to the individual. They don't want to be dependent on government. When they are, we see the sorts of frustrations that have arisen in towns like Tahsis and Gold River, where that feeling of uncertainty manifests itself and where families are asking: "Where will I be this time next year? Will I have a job?" It all relates to the changes that are taking place in an industry that formerly played such an important role for so many people in British Columbia.
The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke spoke about some of the initiatives the government has taken. He didn't dwell in large measure -- and I suspect it was because of the limited time available -- on the other aspect he began his address with, which is the question of education. In my view, education is the key -- education and skills training -- because when all is said and done, the person best equipped to respond to changing conditions in the marketplace and to changing world conditions is the individual who has the most to lose or gain. It is, I suppose, a classic, small-l liberal thought to focus on the individual as having these rights and certain obligations, but education and training empower the individual to look out, to see what is happening -- in this case, in the forestry sector -- and say: "Well, this is what I think is going to happen." They are much better equipped in their homes and communities, with their families, to make those decisions, rather than to await a decision from government that says: "Here's what we think is going to happen, and this is how we believe you should respond."
[ Page 14238 ]
Those are the sorts of initiatives that I think are important and that people are looking for. I conclude by saying that the member is correct in identifying the frustrations felt by individuals and communities across the province in a time of change. Change leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to fear. Insofar as the member is addressing that and identifying that as an issue of concern to British Columbians, I applaud him and thank him for his comments.
The Speaker: The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke concludes.
J. Doyle: I'd like to thank the hon. member for Matsqui for his remarks. Hon. Speaker, I have to say something about the official opposition. When we were speaking of forest renewal -- if the member remembers, it was debated in the Legislature last year -- what did the official opposition do? They voted against it. A big part of the forest renewal announcement was training, as the member speaks about. I would remind him again that it is on the record that the official opposition voted against forest renewal and the chance for training to see forestry get into the future.
I'd have to say, too, that while the third party in the House voted in favour of forest renewal, at the same time they spoke against the increase in stumpage which makes forest renewal possible. To me....
The Speaker: Order, please. I should remind the hon. member to keep in mind the parameters of private members' statements, which necessarily do not include argumentative debate. Please proceed, hon. member.
J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, I just was, if possible with your indulgence, going back to the record as to how the opposition parties voted and spoke at the time of the forest renewal debate. Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll be mindful of your remarks.
All of us in British Columbia must look to the future. I, as the MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke -- a riding like mine depends to a great extent on the forest industry -- have a motion on the order paper. It's the number one motion on the order paper; I'd like to just read from it: "Be it resolved that this House, recognizing that over 100,000 British Columbians are directly employed in the forest industry, support a target to sustain harvest levels in this province tied to a commitment to maintain employment levels in the forest sector."
In summing up, the forest industry is the key to many, many communities in our province. It's the key to our province. A lot of the dollars and cents that come down here to the Minister of Finance come from the forest industry. Thousands of jobs -- over 100,000 jobs directly, not even speaking of the indirect jobs -- come from the forest industry. Our province gains; our country gains.
What we as members of this Legislature and this government must do is keep our forest industry healthy. If we do that, the forests that we own as British Columbians -- the publicly owned forests -- will look after us. That is what I feel is part of our mandate as MLAs. Something that we as government are carrying out to the best of our ability is catching up on the neglect of our forest industry from years past. The forest industry will look after our communities and all of us as residents of British Columbia.
REUSING RESOURCES
C. Tanner: I think the world is rapidly recognizing that we do not enjoy an unlimited supply of natural resources. I wish to speak this morning about an example of a community resource which is being recycled for the benefit of society. It is the famous Butchart Gardens, which happily is in my constituency, in Brentwood Bay. It has become the major tourist economic factor on Vancouver Island. While tourists enjoy it in great numbers, it is also enjoyed by many local inhabitants. Quite frankly, we who live beside this wonderful resource are inclined to take it for granted. Although we are very proud to boast about the gardens and to take visitors to visit them, sometimes, as today, I believe that it's important to review and re-evaluate how fortunate we are to be living in such a bountiful province.
The start of today's Butchart Gardens was over 90 years ago. In 1902 an identified limestone deposit on Tod Inlet, 12 miles north of Victoria, was established -- limestone being the prime ingredient, as I'm sure the House knows, of Portland cement. It was located on the ocean for easy transportation. Historically, the timing of the location could not have been better, as many coastal towns, both in Canada and in the United States, were expanding and building up their infrastructure of roads and sidewalks. At the same time, entrepreneurs were constructing permanent buildings using cement.
Mrs. Butchart, the owner's wife, who lived on the property with her husband and two daughters, immediately started a garden. With the cooperation of her husband, who personally managed the plant and who supplied men to assist, Mrs. Butchart expanded her gardens. In 1906 Mrs. Butchart hired a Japanese landscape artist to draw up a design for an area between her house and the cove, while at the same time a Scotch gardener was imported to become head gardener. Chinese labourers borrowed from the plant made up the international crew that started and founded the gardens.
In 1908 the limestone quarry was exhausted and abandoned -- an ugly intrusion into a beautiful landscape. A casual taunt from a friend, who said to Mrs. Butchart, "Even you would be unable to get anything to grow in there," gave Mrs. Butchart the idea of transforming a terrible environment that had been utilized for the benefit of profit into its second life. The huge rock in the centre of the quarry became a towering rock garden, with stone stairs to the top providing a view of the whole area. The Butcharts collected rare trees and flowers from all over the world. Two arborvitae have flanked the pathway ever since Mr. Butchart planted the first pair in 1920. The sunken garden was completed in 1921.
From the outset, Mr. and Mrs. Butchart welcomed visitors to view their estate. Tea was served to everyone who visited, until sheer numbers made it no longer possible. Teahouses and summer houses were scattered throughout the gardens. The first one was situated on the edge of the sunken garden at the far end, and the last and largest was on the main lawn, inside the cove. In 1915, 18,000 people were served tea.
The Italian garden, the most formal of all, was created in 1926 on the site of the old tennis court. Mrs. Butchart chose the site, acting on a suggestion from her guest Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National Railway. Samuel Maclure was responsible for the design of the garden. He was also
[ Page 14239 ]
the architect of extensive renovations within the residence and of additions to the residence, the conservatory and the private gardens.
In 1931, the mayor of Victoria recognized Mrs. Butchart as the city's best citizen, in appreciation of her opening her beautiful gardens to the public. Her husband, who was also a keen gardener, was made a Freeman of the City of Victoria. In 1939, Mr. and Mrs. Butchart presented the gardens to their grandson, Mr. Ian Ross, on his twenty-first birthday. During the 1939-45 war the gardens were maintained by minimum staff, and it was not until 1941 that a small admission was charged to assist in the maintenance of these beautiful gardens.
In 1954, night illumination was introduced to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the gardens, and at that time it was the largest underground wiring project in North America. For the sixtieth anniversary, the Ross fountain was installed. It rises 70 feet in the air and never repeats its patterns.
During the more than 90 years of existence of the now world-famous Butchart Gardens, there have been only two owners: Mr. Butchart and his grandson Mr. Ian Ross. The gardens are open to the public every day of the year, with more than three-quarters of a million people enjoying this unique attraction.
I'd like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that three-quarters of a million people, many of them tourists, visit these gardens every year. Why this long description of one of the province's -- in fact, the country's -- most famous tourist attractions? Because it illustrates to all of us how, with determination and imagination, a desolate natural resource can be recycled to once again be an everlasting asset.
Butchart Gardens today employs 50 permanent gardeners year-round and hundreds of summer staff consisting of students, local residents and other specialists. These gardens continue to attract visitors from around the world, particularly Japan, who fly into Vancouver, ferry over to the Island and then travel to the Rockies and Banff later. The impetus for their coming to the Island is the Butchart Gardens. It is Butchart Gardens that attracts them to my constituency, and all the other surrounding businesses benefit from that visit. In fact, during my last visit to the gardens, the thought struck me that the contracts for camera film must be lucrative, because the fabulous floral displays demand to be photographed. A lifetime ago the Butcharts realized that the raw resource limestone, having been extracted and used for our benefit, was not the end of the line, it was the beginning. In the first instance the quarry provided profit, jobs and materiel. In the second instance the quarry provided profit, jobs and a famous tourist attraction.
[11:00]
R. Kasper: The previous speaker, I think, has touched on a subject that many of appreciate regardless of where we live in this province, and that is what those in the private sector and the public sector can, in fact, accomplish with a spent resource such as the old cement factory and works out at Brentwood.
The government last year recognized the important scenic viewsheds that surround the scenic gardens at Butchart and made a conscious decision to secure the Gowlland-Tod Inlet areas, because there were overtures from the family, the current owners, that they were fearful of future land use development that could infringe on the scenic viewshed that many visitors appreciate while they visit the gardens. I know I have, and I'm sure other members in the House have brought visitors or family or friends from all over to visit the gardens. Not only is it an incredible asset for the community of Brentwood and the member's riding, but it is an incredible asset for the greater Victoria area and, for that matter, the province. The asset and the gardens are world-renowned. Many people who come here are bombarded with all sorts of literature and promotion about this area, but one local facility -- Butchart Gardens -- people hear about and want to visit regardless of all the other opportunities that are here.
I think it should be noted that there are other areas in the province where similar types of industrial mining activities have been turned into tourist attractions without losing the flavour of why they were there in the first place. Many of us know of Barkerville. There are untold numbers of annual visitors who come and see our history, based on the thriving nature of mining within this province. Most recently, there was a commitment from the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism to assist in establishing an historic exhibit of the Hedley mine, which will again promote the history of mining and also enhance tourism within that region of the province.
In many respects, the longstanding work and effort in Butchart Gardens can bode well for other sand- or gravel-extraction mining operations or previous cement works. Just across the way, on Saanich Inlet, we have the old Bamberton site. There's been a lot of discussion about how that particular property should be developed in the future. In many respects, what has gone on in Butchart Gardens and the beauty that is associated with that piece of land could bode well for the future of the Bamberton site.
I would like to thank the member and congratulate him for bringing forward this message about the beauty and all the incredible things that people can feast their eyes on, smell and taste when they visit Butchart Gardens.
C. Tanner: Far be it from me to have a change of heart and let members think that this is a self-congratulating society, but I must say that the government is to be congratulated on setting aside the parklands surrounding Butchart Gardens. A great deal of those were in my constituency, as well as in that of the member who has just spoken. I think it bodes well for the future, in that we have 24,000 hectares in the province that are impacted by mining. Hopefully, that will all be reclaimed.
It was in my role as Tourism critic that I recently reminded MLAs in the House that all too often those directly involved in the industry take local resources for granted. We speak in glowing terms of tourism as an environmentally friendly resource and of the millions that it contributes annually to the provincial and municipal coffers. But are we conscious, as we should be, of the importance of tourism, now that we have learned that our region does not enjoy unlimited supplies of natural resources? Have we really put our minds to some form of maximizing the potential?
For instance, residents of Saanich North and the Islands boast of Butchart Gardens and proudly take visitors to view them. But have we also taken time out to understand the example set by the Butcharts? While Mrs. Butchart is remembered all over the world for the beauty she created, perhaps at
[ Page 14240 ]
home we should honour her today as the world's most dedicated recycler. It would be an interesting exercise to imagine Bamberton, a defunct cement plant, as Butchart II. A little closer to home perhaps, we should unleash a modern-day Jenny Butchart on our vacant and now highly sought-after airport lands and see what she would do to recycle them.
The Speaker: That concludes private members' statements for the morning. Before recognizing hon. members seeking the floor, I would just like to commend those members who presented statements this morning for taking due care to review the guidelines with respect to private members' statements. For those who may have strayed somewhat from the strict adherence to the guidelines, perhaps they could take a little time to review them prior to their next statements. Thank you very much.
M. de Jong: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. de Jong: Touring the buildings today are 30-odd students from the Dasmesh Punjabi School in Abbotsford. They have travelled on an early ferry, are having a tour of the facility and will be in the House chamber. I hope the members will make them feel very welcome.
D. Lovick: I wonder if I might also have leave to make a brief introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I want to welcome to the precincts and to the chamber a group of young people from the United States. Ms. Chin is a teacher at Deary High in Deary, Idaho, and she is with a group of students who are here to learn something about our system. I understand the focus is on comparative government. I would simply ask my colleagues to join me in offering them a warm welcome.
M. de Jong: I have a petition from 30 constituents of mine in Abbotsford, who are expressing their concerns regarding the construction of a health care facility in the Swensson Avenue area of Abbotsford. Their concerns relate to the fact that it is being constructed on ALR lands without any consultation. They also express concerns regarding the cost of the facility being constructed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply to hear the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
On vote 53: minister's office, $402,165.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I present today the 1995-96 budget estimates for the Ministry of Social Services. These are difficult times for Canadians involved in holding together the fabric of our social safety net. Across Canada and among our neighbours to the south, the future of the social safety net is uncertain. Federal cuts to social program funding have placed enormous stress on the province's ability to deliver support services to those among us who genuinely need our help.
The public has, for many years, entrusted the Ministry of Social Services with the mandate to care for vulnerable children, families, people with handicaps and the unemployed among us. This task is made more difficult by the federal cuts, but we are addressing this challenge within the resources available to us. Fortunately, B.C.'s economy continues to be among North America's strongest, and this government has had an impressive record of job creation.
Still there are among us, in our families and communities, British Columbians who are not sharing in this well-being, this quality of life, this prosperity. One in ten British Columbians is today dependent upon income support; more than 130,000 are children. Among children five years of age and younger, the figures are even more disturbing: more than one in five depend on welfare. The stresses of poverty and rapid socioeconomic changes leave their marks on our children and on our families. Last year my ministry received more than 27,000 allegations of child abuse. We are parents to approximately 6,600 children, more than half of whom came into our care through voluntary agreement with parents who feel that they can no longer cope. The Gove inquiry into child protection has highlighted the need for improvements to the policy, practice and resource changes in the family and child services area of my ministry -- an area long neglected by previous government administrations. In this climate, we are striving to maintain and strengthen our services to those who are not yet benefiting from the buoyant economic growth of the past several years.
The people of British Columbia have entrusted my ministry with the care and protection of children at risk, families in crisis, people with mental handicaps and those suffering financial hardship. This very serious responsibility must be undertaken with the full understanding of our dual obligation to protect the privacy of those who we serve and to be publicly accountable for our decisions. We are working hard to achieve this balance in each of our program areas.
Let me discuss the family and children's services area first. This year our top priority is upgrading our services to children and families. Specifically, we are implementing the landmark child protection legislation that was passed by this House last year. The Child, Family and Community Service Act and its companion legislation, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act were introduced in the same month as this, during which I called for a commission of inquiry into child protection.
As you know, Judge Thomas Gove has conducted this inquiry across the province and made some interim recommendations for legislative change. Some of his recommendations will be introduced as amendments during this session; others are undergoing further review. I very much look forward to receiving Judge Gove's final report this summer. His insights will help us shape a new, more effective and more responsive child protection system.
I am very mindful of Judge Gove's cautionary advice, well received, that we not proceed too quickly to implement the new acts. However, at the same time, we are convinced
[ Page 14241 ]
that they represent a significant improvement in the legal framework required to protect children in the 1990s. They also have significant budget implications; we will require additional staff this year to begin the extensive effort of implementing the legislation across the province. Additional resources will be needed to improve support and training for front-line child protection workers, to reduce average caseloads for social work staff and to establish additional youth and family support services to comply with the intent of the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Funding at the level we are requesting is also necessary to allow the ministry to continue rebuilding relationships with aboriginal people, as first nations seek to regain responsibility for child welfare in their own communities.
As we refocus and redirect our work for children and families to more proactive, cost-effective strategies, we recognize our ministry's need to be more accountable for its actions. The appointment this spring of Joyce Preston as the very first child, youth and family advocate is a major step forward, and I look forward to this coming Monday, May 15, when Ms. Preston formally begins her role as the child, youth and family advocate. She will be joining us here, working out of the Legislature, for the first few months of her tenure. So is the impending appointment of a family review board, whose mandate will be to review cases of concern to the ministry, the minister, children in care or the public.
One of the most challenging responsibilities of my ministry is the role of parenting 6,600 children. With the new legislation, we also propose to address current problems related to the growing number of children in care by broadening programs that support their independence, by ensuring that youth participate in making decisions that affect them and by recognizing youth's specific developmental needs and vulnerabilities.
The full financial impact of these significant legislative changes will be felt in the 1996-97 budget, but we will have some impact in this budget, which I look forward to discussing with the members of the House.
[11:15]
To move on to income support programs, one of the factors that too often contributes to family breakdown is poverty. In this ministry we provide a range of services to alleviate poverty through our income assistance programs. This year our total budget for these programs is down more than $77 million. We are cutting spending on income assistance payments by $56 million, and we will increase cash recoveries by another $21 million. This reflects the ongoing success of the accountability measures I outlined in my last budget estimates speech, and it represents our renewed commitment to ensuring that assistance goes only to those who are in need.
We are continuing to direct resources to where we believe they have the greatest impact: front-line prevention, deterrence and recovery of duplicate benefits. As I mentioned, we expect cash recoveries this year to increase by $21 million over last year, for a total savings of $41.6 million. We cannot precisely measure the dollar value of deterrence, but there is no doubt that it is having a very significant impact. For example, last year we closed a costly loophole that had allowed people waiting for unemployment insurance benefits to collect income assistance for the same period. We made it clear that anyone accepting income assistance benefits under these conditions would have to pay taxpayers back. Thousands of these people chose not to collect their income assistance cheques. The value of their unclaimed cheques was $9 million. We are also realizing savings through our prevention, compliance and enforcement division, which targets welfare fraud. We estimate that every dollar invested there saves taxpayers at least five dollars.
I must point out, however, that we will have to work diligently to meet the specified reduction in the income assistance program budget. British Columbia's economic growth is expected to moderate somewhat in 1995. Federal changes to unemployment insurance eligibility continue to shift more responsibility to income assistance programs for those who lose their jobs. The number of jobless workers who are able to collect unemployment insurance has fallen from the traditional level of 90 percent to where it currently is now, which is 50 percent -- a very disturbing trend.
We are still seeing very high in-migration. Last year more than 80,000 people came to British Columbia from other provinces, most of them looking for work; 29,000 ended up collecting income assistance for a period of time. We are also continuing to see high unemployment among our youth, growing numbers of single-parent families -- 60 percent of whom receive income assistance -- and a feminization of poverty: 93 percent of single-parent families on income assistance are headed by women.
The accountability and efficiency measures I have outlined are a vital part of our strategy to address these and other factors affecting the public need for income support, while we are exploring other options for tightening up the system to ensure that scarce program dollars go only to those genuinely in need. I will address these measures in greater detail later in this session. However, they do include recovering benefit overpayments from people who no longer need income assistance, clarifying eligibility guidelines for discretionary and crisis grants and encouraging those who qualify for federal benefits, such as the widowed spouses allowance, to actually collect them.
We are also working closely with the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour to help people move from welfare to work. For example, we are currently developing an exciting youth initiative to give thousands of young people job experience, training and other needed resources to help them achieve independence. This kind of efficiency is vital in this time of growing federal off-loading. It has become increasingly clear that we cannot rely on Ottawa to care for those most vulnerable members of our society.
The third area of responsibility in my ministry is community support services. The program area in which this ministry needs the greatest increase in resources this year is community support services. Over the past several years government has demonstrated its commitment to moving people with mental handicaps out of institutions and into the community. The closure of B.C.'s last two residential institutions for people with mental handicaps, Glendale and Woodlands, is proceeding on schedule and will be completed by the end of the 1996-97 fiscal year.
A comprehensive network of community-based services has been developed for people with multiple disabilities to replace the services provided by institutions. As part of this process, all responsibilities of the Ministry of Health's services for community living branch, except for the head injuries program, have been transferred to Social Services as of the beginning of this fiscal year.
[ Page 14242 ]
Work is well underway to create a new consolidated structure for the services to people with multiple disabilities provided by the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Health. This consolidation will make better use of physical and economic resources, it will meet clients' changing needs, and it maximizes the integration of people with multiple disabilities into the community. Staff in both ministries have been vigilant in making certain that this realignment has not in any way affected the quality of service being delivered to the people of British Columbia.
I believe we are seeing a more streamlined system that is easier for people to access, and one that makes the most efficient and effective use of available resources. Today in British Columbia fewer than 8 percent of people with mental handicaps live in institutions -- and that's good news. A wide range of services are available to support families which have someone with a handicap living at home. These services include family support homemakers, respite care to give families a break, infant development programs and supportive child care for children with special needs.
Many of these services are contracted to agencies in our communities throughout British Columbia. During this fiscal year, we will be taking a much closer look at all of this ministry's contracted services in all program areas. We will establish closer links with contracted agencies and implement more effective monitoring procedures. This initiative is just one more example of our commitment to improve accountability and to ensure that services are delivered efficiently to those who are truly in need.
In summary, my ministry is requesting funding at the level of $2,781,112,835 for the 1995-96 fiscal year. We have recognized the need in all our programs to seek savings and improve accountability. I believe we have been responsible and indeed innovative in meeting the target set for us by Treasury Board. We are achieving this target by proceeding cautiously with the implementation of our new child, family and community services legislation, by proposing a smaller income assistance rate increase and targeting that increase to meet the greatest need -- children -- and tightening the income assistance system to ensure benefits go to only those who are truly in need.
We believe that our proposals are in keeping with government's strategic priority of sound fiscal management. We are making expenditures where they are most needed by providing services to children and youth. We are living up to our commitments to eliminate waste, duplication and abuse, and to deliver services to those who are in need of society's help. This budget is consistent with my ministry's strategic direction and with its vision: a British Columbia in which everyone is able to achieve social and economic security within strong, supportive communities. Family support services are cost-effective. By helping families stay together, we reduce demand for other government social services such as health care and justice, and we reduce the long-term costs imposed on society. My ministry plays an important role in maintaining quality of life and stability in all our communities, and we're proud of the work that we do. I'll be pleased to take any questions, hon. Chair.
V. Anderson: I thank the Minister of Social Services for her introduction to the estimates, which, as she has indicated, are very important to the people of British Columbia. I also want to thank the minister for the opportunity I had to meet with the staff and look at preparation for the estimates, not only this year but over the past years. I appreciate the staff in the way they have cooperated throughout the year, not only in the preparation of the estimates. Perhaps before I go further, the minister would like the opportunity to introduce her staff that are here so that we might all appreciate them, because I think they are very valuable members, and I'm sure the minister could not succeed in her wishes without them.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I thank the hon. member opposite. He is extremely polite, and this is the second year in a row that he has had to remind me. I feel very badly about that, and I'll try next year -- honestly, I will.
On my left is the Deputy Minister of Social Services, Sheila Wynn; behind me is Les Foster who is the assistant deputy minister of financial services; and on my right is Chris Haynes, who is assistant deputy minister of field operations. Over the course of the estimates we will be joined by other staff, and I'll try very hard to introduce them as they come forward.
V. Anderson: It's a very serious time when we're discussing social services, because for many years within this province the social service system has failed to meet the needs of the people in communities across the province. There are many reasons for that failure, not the least of which are the lack of support from the people who live in communities across the province and the lack of concern about other people. Part of that lack of concern is that so many people in our province, probably like ourselves at many times, go about their own business and their own activities. Because things are going relatively well for us, we assume that things are going relatively well for other people. Also, when we hear from time to time that things are not going well for others, there is a tendency sometimes to say thaat that's only temporary or that it's their own fault, and so we do not look at how we might have caused the difficulties which impinge upon others.
I found this very often in my ministry as a United Church minister working with people in the community, because they were hidden away -- not intentionally but out of necessity. They weren't part of what we call the mainstream of community activity, and so their needs and their concerns were overlooked by others. I think in recent times, and also after the Second World War, we kind of forgot what went on in the Depression and in the thirties, and the kind of difficulty that people lived with in those circumstances -- the food lines, the riots, the marches -- where people were trying to find, in desperation, someone who would listen to their urgent needs. Fortunately, or unfortunately for them, the Second World War came and the whole economy changed. Many of those persons joined the services, went overseas and offered their lives on behalf of a country and of a people who had neglected them for generations.
[11:30]
After the war, then, there was a rebuilding and a redevelopment; a whole new undertaking and approach to society came about. Out of it came a new social services support system across all of Canada, and it was built in a time of prosperity, of increasing income, of increasing construction and of increasing growth. A factor that also changed our society considerably during the war years was that many more women found themselves, of necessity and also by choice, in the workforce. Opportunities and recognition
[ Page 14243 ]
opened for them in areas of employment that had been totally closed to them up to that time. After the war many of those women did not go back, but they stayed in the workforce and have continued to contribute and grow in recognition, effort and support.
That has changed the nature of society; it has changed the nature of family life. Prior to the war, particularly when we were in a rural society, families worked at home. The mother and father and all the children worked on the farm. Everybody was part of the economic development. They lived and had their social and working life right there on the land and in the community that they were all a part of. As organization increased and people moved off the land, the place where you worked and the place where you lived became increasingly separated from one another.
Prior to the war, most of our communities across Canada, even the cities, were relatively small. In the relatively small community, there was a great deal of interaction and common support, and many community services developed from churches, non-profit associations, lodges and other service clubs. There were many community activities -- recreational, social -- in which everyone could participate freely and without cost. But that also changed as we grew as an urban community. It changed drastically so that today many children cannot participate in sports events, because they don't have the funds to be part of them, and that takes away from their social life and their own credibility.
Two-parent families now are working to try and maintain an income. Yet in spite of them both working, they are continually finding that their total income is decreasing and the opportunities are becoming less for them. Their children are finding it harder to get an education because of the costs, and the opportunities are no longer as available as they once were. When I went through university you could earn enough money in the summer to pay your tuition. You can no longer do that, and that's a major concern for those young people. Also, when those young people come out of educational institutions today, there are not the job opportunities.
I was interested in a comment from my daughter, who is a chartered accountant -- she and her husband both are, and they are in their forties at this present time. Her comment about her children, our three grandchildren, was that they will probably never have the opportunities in their lifetime that she and those of her generation have had. They were at the peak of opportunity. Those who come behind them are going to be in a much more difficult situation, and life will be more threatening for them. So parents are concerned about that, as are the children. The children are very aware that their future is uncertain, whereas my children's generation had the world. They could travel, they could do anything they wanted and they could get a job almost any time they asked for one as soon as they graduated.
However, that began to change a few years ago. When our second daughter graduated from university, she decided she would travel. She went to Japan and worked there as an English-as-a-second-language teacher, and she did some other travelling. When she came back in the spring, she began to apply for a new job. Even though she had excellent qualifications and high marks, she discovered that employers were hiring graduates who were going to come out that spring, not the ones who graduated the year before. The assumption was that if you did not take a job when you graduated, there must have been some reason, and they weren't going to take that chance. That was the beginning of a changeover of availability.
Also, as the minister mentioned, single-parent families have become much more prevalent in our society. That has created a whole new challenge for the total community, because single-parent families.... If two-parent families are having an economic struggle in our society, how much more of an economic, social and community struggle are single-parent families having? As I meet and talk with those single parents, I realize how difficult it is for them to work all week and come home, where they have full responsibility during the week as well. There's no letup; there's no respite; there's no change; there's no support, particularly when we now are in a situation where the extended family -- parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters -- are living in other parts of the world. They're not in the community, where you can call upon them in a very earnest way. There's a whole change in our situation, which we collectively have not responded to, and which shows its effects by the increasing demand on our social services system and network.
Back in the seventies and eighties, people were saying that we were very prosperous and doing very well. It was pointed out to me even back then that the reality of the incomes of people and their opportunities were worse than during the Depression, but it was covered over and hidden from us because of the fact that there was a social services system that supported and protected these people from the devastation that would have otherwise been there. It's great that this system was there and is still there to support these people, but what it did was hide from us the underlying difficulties of the society that had to be challenged and changed.
Because it was hidden from us, we did not tackle those problems; we did not tackle the change that was coming. Even back there in the minds of many people to the knowledge age.... We did not look at the changes that were taking place in our environment and to our resource base. We did not look at the changes that were taking place around the world. We were no longer a tight, secluded community; we were an interactive community with the rest of the world. What happened in any part of the world would directly affect us. We did not look at the underlying causes and the underlying needs.
Unfortunately, because we the Canadian people did not do that, because the Canadian people did not direct their governments to do that and because the Canadian people only wanted their governments to make them happy and comfortable and make life as easy as possible, we went on not heeding the many warnings that many people gave us about what was to come. It's not surprising that today we are in a very disastrous situation, where children, youth, young people, families and single parents are in circumstances that are having drastic effects upon their individual and family lives -- circumstances that will go into the future and that we will have to bear for many years to come.
[ Page 14244 ]
I was interested in the comment of the Attorney General the other day, when he was being pressured about preventive measures. We all agree that we need to put in place preventive measures so crime does not exist down the road. His comment was: "I agree totally with that, but the reality is that because we did not have those preventive measures over the last 30 or 40 years, the cost of that is eating up our finances as we deal with it today; we need double the finances to deal with the reality of what we did not do at the same time as we deal with the reality of prevention for the future." We are in a situation of having both at this time, and that's a reality that I think we have to face. That's a reality that is brought home to us very clearly by Social Services. The damage that has been done to people who are now adults.... The damage that has been done to them while they were children and youth and young people trying to get into the workforce is now upon us.
Many of the persons who are unemployed today are unemployed because they had a single-track educational system that did not give them the opportunity to branch out for new circumstances. Let me give one example that came out in the recession of the eighties. That recession brought unemployment to architects, engineers and many highly qualified professional people. I had the opportunity to meet with them when they were coming together in self-help groups, and one of the realities that came out was that they had been trained to work for somebody else. And when they were let out of their jobs, they did not have an understanding of how to redirect their skills and develop them for their own use in new companies or organizations.
That was a skill they had to deal with when they were unemployed. The results of that were also that when you became unemployed, your self-esteem went. Your friends went; your social life went; your mortgage went. Everything came apart, and you did not know how to cope with it. There were not and there are not opportunities in place yet for people to survive those circumstances.
Let me give one illustration that was told to me by a group of engineers who had come together to support each other. They met in the pub, which had been their opportunity to do so. One of the friends they had worked with came into the pub, and they knew he'd been unemployed and under stress. He said to them: "I want to buy a round for you today." He bought a round for them, went outside and killed himself. That round was to say goodbye and to say thank you for their support.
There are stories after stories, and that's where many of our adult population are. Those people are having difficulty giving love and care to their children. We can't concentrate just on the children, though we must concentrate on them, but we must also concentrate on the parents.
When the first food bank began in Vancouver, there was an unemployed fellow who drove in from Surrey every day to volunteer to be a part of that. In the planning session, we asked him one day why he came all that distance every day. He said simply: "I'll be honest with you. If I stay home, I'm so frustrated I'll beat up my children. It's better for them that I am here rather than at home." Those are the kinds of tensions that are out there today. Those are the tensions we will be discussing and dealing with as we go through Social Services. One final comment for now is that it's not just social services that we must think about. It's the integration of the whole of our government programs -- all of the support services -- because Social Services has to pick up the pieces where other ministries fail. They do not solve employment or education problems, but Social Services picks up where other ministries fail. When we look at the needs of Social Services, we're looking at the collective failure of all of us.
I move that Committee B rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[11:45]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: After a very good week of debate and what I hope is going to be a safe and healthy weekend for everyone, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:46 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]