1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6601 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On vote 60: minister's office –– 6601

Mr. Howard

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Cocke

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 60: minister's office, $190,520.

MR. HOWARD: All I'm doing is standing up to see whether the

minister is going to respond to those important questions we put to him

the other day.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've answered every question. Are there any others? If not, let's have the vote pass.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to some

unfinished comments and some unfinished questions of the other day

dealing with the proliferation of commercial bingos in the province. I

want to go back to an

article that was in the Vancouver Sun on

May 10. I'll just quote from that

article and paraphrase some of the

more important points of it. It says that there is another all-new

industry springing up in the province to help the unemployed fill in

time and assist the poor in their desperate bid for a jackpot. It's the

bingo industry, and unfortunately this is no joke. In the name of

raising money for charity, a group of clever business operators is

transforming the church basement game of chance into a burgeoning and

profitable industry. It goes on to say:

"The names of those involved in the new enterprise

include some of the province's most prominent entrepreneurs, as well as

members of Premier Bill Bennett's own family. One of the major players

is Tom Capozzi of Kelowna, brother of Vancouver-based businessman Herb

Capozzi."

It goes on to outline the concerns regarding the transfer of dollars

away from the historic charitable organizations that have long run the

game, such as the churches and the service clubs in the communities, to

these private entrepreneurs. Here's an

article written in the

Abbotsford paper on March 13. It says:

"At least two separate Mission organizations that depend

heavily on bingo revenues to finance their programs are 'worried sick.'

Robert Enoch, executive director of the Mission and District Association for

the Mentally Retarded and Mission Indian Friendship Centre...declared Tuesday

that disaster for their groups is inevitable unless they can regain Mission's

bingo populace. The declining attendance problem, the pair explained, is mainly

due to a new, more sophisticated bingo operation in Abbotsford which offers

attractive cash prizes and modern facilities."

Again, the proliferation of commercial halls in the Abbotsford area.

Here's another

article of May 11 in the Vancouver Sun regarding the proliferation

of bingo in the Kelowna area. This is a quote of Lynne Smith, secretary-manager

of the Kelowna Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 26: "The new halls have really

hurt us. They're closing us down. We used to have two bingos a week, one

run by the ladies' auxiliary and one by the branch, and we're down to

just one a week. I think we'll soon be forced to close the other."

That

article goes on.

Here's a letter written to the Provincial Secretary's office, dated

April 29, from the Royal Canadian Air Cadets from Mission, British

Columbia. "Some or all of our organizations are going to lose," — this

is in respect to the proliferation of commercial halls in that area —

"and it will hurt the people benefiting from the bingos. The Legion

bingo, if enough of their patrons go to the new hall, may have to close

down their bingo, and then quite a number of Mission citizens will lose

a lot." A number of organizations receive grants from the Legion,

including the air cadets, the senior citizens and high school

graduates, to name a very few. I've received many more pieces of

correspondence, letters written directly to me.

[10:15]

I think that perhaps one of the more pertinent comes from — and I

received this just yesterday — the Abbotsford Old Age Pensioners'

Organization. It's addressed to me, and it's over the signature of

Pearl Meek, president of the old age pensioners' organization. It says:

"Your stand in favour of 'traditional church basement

operations' is extremely gratifying, and we congratulate you for your request

that an official inquiry be made into the situation."

Here is the pertinent

information.

"The increase in 'bingo barns' is a matter that

has been of some concern to us for months past. Our area has been flooded with

commercial outlets that operate to the detriment of organizations such as ours

that are non-profit in scope. These smaller operations are being pushed to the

wall, and one large concern that produced thousands of dollars for local community

projects has been forced to close down."

Those are the details, Mr. Minister. Those are the results of the unfettered

proliferation of these commercial halls.

The reason I have requested that we investigate this matter more

thoroughly, that we have another look at it and see if we can possibly

alter or tighten up the regulations somewhat, is not to knock the

commercial halls out — there may be a place for them — but to give

everybody a fairer break in the competition for that bingo dollar.

These are recommendations that I've made time and time again —

recommendations that the minister does not seem to treat seriously. And

I might point out to the minister that right in the heart of solid

Socred country the old age pensioners of Abbotsford are requesting that

such an inquiry be held. Your own constituents, Mr. Minister, are

requesting that. There obviously is a lot of concern there.

I think a lot of people discount commercial bingo in British

Columbia as being nickel-and-dime stuff. It's not. It's big bucks. It

has to be big bucks when we get the Capozzis and Skalbanias getting

into the game. Then you know it's big bucks. As a matter of fact, the

bingo turnover throughout British Columbia is in the neighbourhood of

$20 million a year. That's not pin money by any standards. Now we find

the friends of government directly profiting from the proceeds of these

commercial bingo halls.

What really worries me is that the relaxation of these regulations appears to be a first step towards the legalization

[ Page 6602 ]

of commercial gambling throughout the province. What's next, Mr. Chairman?

At this point I think I'll sit down for just a moment and see if the minister wants to rebut any of those comments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all the member talks about people

in British Columbia profiting, making ripoff profits — he didn't use

that word, but essentially that's what he meant — from the bingo

business. Essentially all they are doing is renting space, and the

non-profits and the charitable organizations in British Columbia make

the profit for charitable purposes.

The member has changed his language slightly. He's no longer asking

for an inquiry; he's suggesting that there should be an investigation.

I presume that it's because of the statements made by the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) the other day during the debate, in which the

member for Nanaimo said that there was no need for an inquiry. I wish

those socialists over there would get their act together. One is asking

for an inquiry, and another is saying that there is no need for an

inquiry. There's a lot of inconsistency on the other side of the House

as far as bingo is concerned.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're still asking for an inquiry? You're

asking for an inquiry, and the member for Nanaimo says there's no need

for an inquiry. So there's a lot of inconsistency over there in the

opposition. You'd better make up your minds as to whether there should

be or shouldn't be. You leave me baffled as to what should take place

because of your inconsistencies over there. I'm absolutely baffled.

I think I'll just have to read into the record — and that's very

difficult to do, to baffle me — some statements made by the member for

Nanaimo when he talked about bingos. I think the member from the North

Okanagan wasn't listening very closely when the member spoke. He had

this to say:

As for the talk about bingo halls, bingo

palaces or bingo operators, this is not the first time it's happened.

Every hall that's built in Nanaimo or anywhere else is the newest one

in that community that day. Certainly, the CCF hall in Nanaimo right

now is the newest one for that particular activity to take place. When

the minister talks about 14 organizations using one hall in Kelowna,

there must be some 28 using the CCF hall in Nanaimo.

I corrected him; there are 21.

You don't have to have four weeks or 52 weeks a year; some organizations have 13 weeks a year, and that happens.

Certainly in my experience in Nanaimo, when

the minister's staff felt that some charitable organization was getting

more than they were entitled to, they interfered and said that

organization A should have a bingo only one out of four weeks, rather

than every week, and that spread the largesse around, if you like. But

in any case, he didn't interfere with the people who were playing, and

that worked.

Prior to the building of that hall, the

newest hall in town was Mount Benson Legion. That almost destroyed

Branch 10 Legion's bingos.

The CCF hall almost destroyed Mt. Benson Legion hall bingos.

When the Super-Valu closed down and the Elks

moved in and opened up a hall, that hurt a lot of bingos. Every time a

new building opens up, initially it hurts other organizations and then

the crowd seems to build and the volume increases, and more and more

people are playing bingo. I don't know why. I couldn't come to do it

myself, but it happens.

The halls are getting better. They have machinery now that will actually remove

some of that smoke. You can almost breathe in the newest halls, and to think

the people would complain about having halls like that and say to people: "You

should go back to the church basements." The first bingo that I worked

in was a room large enough to hold 30 people, and the smoke was so thick you

could hardly see from one end of that small room to the other.

Ours is not the

last one to be built. A new one is going to open up in Nanaimo in July, I believe.

A new bingo palace in Nanaimo. Now if our rent is too high, which it isn't

— the minister gave the figures in the House — it comes out to $7 per square

foot per year. That's not much to charge today for a new building. A new

one is opening up; I don't know what their rates will be, but they'll

have to be competitive, and the CCF hall rent will have to be competitive, or

the crowds will go elsewhere and the operators will go elsewhere. It's the

ones that are successful, the licensees, if you like.... I don't know how

many there are — I've lost count, but certainly substantially more than 14

in the CCF hall in Nanaimo.

Really, he's actually saying there is no need for an inquiry. He's

saying, let competition determine where the charitable and non-profit

organizations will play bingo. Even though the CCF hall collects

$155,847 of rent each and every year, they're prepared to be

competitive. They're prepared to compete against the marketplace. I

can't understand the philosophy of that member over there. Maybe he's a

little more socialist than the member for Nanaimo and doesn't believe

in a competitive free enterprise society. The member for Nanaimo does.

He's prepared to allow the CCF hall to compete and allow those

non-profit and charitable organizations and licensees to go elsewhere.

I think I rest my case on the statements made by the member for

Nanaimo. I think those two members should talk to each other sometime,

instead of having their disagreements in this chamber.

MR. MacWILLIAM: If the minister's intention is to drive a

wedge between members over here, my simple response is: like the Red

Sea we shall part, and when he falls flat on his face we'll come back

together.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: No, of course you wouldn't. It would be beyond you to attempt such an insidious deed.

I would like to point out that I don't think there really is a

disagreement in principle in terms of calling for an investigation or

calling for an inquiry; I maintain that I hold that position. I

disagree with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), granted. Isn't it

nice that members on this side of the House can be in disagreement and

voice their concerns freely, instead of being coddled behind one voice,

as members of the other side of the House are so frequently? Isn't it

nice that members of this side of the House can demonstrate a voice of

individual concern — a democratic right, in fact? I think it's

refreshing, Mr. Minister — indeed, very refreshing.

I'd like to point out to the minister that I'm not the only one who

has requested an investigation into this whole thing. Again, I think

the minister misreads the reasons behind that. I'm not necessarily

coming out against commercial bingo. There may be a place for it; I've

said it time and time again. But let's make sure that the bingo dollar

is not squeezed away from the charities that it has for so long gone

to. That's the issue at hand.

We discussed it in detail the other day. If the minister can recall,

I took him through a simple arithmetic quiz; he didn't seem to catch on

to the mathematics. But perhaps if he wants to take the time at a later

date, we can go through it again. The real issue is that the commercial

halls limit the amount of access that the non-profit societies have in

running the bingos

[ Page

6603 ]

and more and more of the bingo dollar is funnelled back to fewer and fewer

organizations. That's the concern.

The other concern is the lack of adequate inspection; we've

addressed that before. The fact is that the minister has fired four of

the six provincial inspectors. There is inadequate inspection. The

minister has not taken with any seriousness the possible infractions

that I brought to his attention; he laughs them off. I would suggest

that he consider that matter a little more seriously. If they are

infractions that go against his own recommendations, I think he should

at least give this side of the House the courtesy to proceed with an

initial inspection of that.

I want to move on to what I think is really the important issue

here. I think that the proliferation of commercial halls throughout

British Columbia appears to be, as I mentioned, a first step towards

the legalization of gambling in this province. That's really an

important broad stroke of the brush that up until now we've missed. I

might ask the minister whether in fact any of the latest surveys that

have been done by the government, with taxpayers' money, have asked the

question in terms of the legalization of gambling in British Columbia.

I would wonder if the minister would care to respond as to whether

those questions have been on previous government surveys.

Money is being funnelled off from traditional charities in this

province. The regulations as presently prescribed are vague.

Enforcement of those regulations is inadequate. The door is open for

the proliferation of legalized gambling in British Columbia. If the

government continues to allow this, I think the next step is that

British Columbia will become the Nevada of the north — the legalization

of casino gambling. But before this possibly happens, I would like to

bring out some concerns that have been addressed in other areas.

In April 1985, the Calgary police commission prepared a report

regarding legalized casino gambling. In the report they concluded that

casinos offer an ideal environment for crime in that their operation

involves large cash flows that cannot be monitored at all stages. As

well, they noted that many of the strict controls limiting criminal

involvement in European casinos may not be possible in Canada by reason

of the Charter of Rights. To give you an example, jurisdictions that

have privately operated casinos typically refuse casino licences to

individuals with criminal records. A recent Queen's Bench decision in

Manitoba, if the minister cares to have the reference cited, may in

fact negate this restriction.

In April 1983, for the minister's information, the commonwealth of

Massachusetts made an in-depth study of the economic and social

consequences of introducing legalized casino gambling into the state of

Massachusetts. Here are some key issues in that report.

Street crime occurring in a casino setting is likely to involve more vice and

violence than street crime in non-gambling tourist areas. There is overwhelming

evidence in the literature of crime that the introduction of legal casinos contributes

to a substantial increase in street crime. And I don't think I'm being

alarmist. I'm saying, let's have a really close look at this. If in

fact this government is proceeding in this direction, let's have a very

close look. These crimes include, but are not limited to, rape, murder, armed

robbery, aggravated assault, mugging, burglary, larceny, auto theft, narcotics,

prostitution and even petty thievery. I don't think that's alarmist.

I think we have to look at the logical consequences of where this government

appears to be moving.

Most of these crimes occur in recreational settings where there are

large groups of people with substantial amounts of money to spend, such

as commercial bingo halls or legalized casinos. The casino industry

itself is often the victim of criminal schemes and is a unique problem

for law enforcement.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Have a listen to the other side of the House.

The most serious problem connected with casino gambling is the presence of organized crime.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. Hon. members, the member

for Okanagan North has currently taken his place in Committee of

Supply, is addressing the vote, the minister's estimates, and will be

afforded every opportunity to carry on without interruption. Please

proceed.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You can always tell when you hit a sore nerve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No reference to the ruling. To the vote, please.

[10:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The U.S. attorney in the District of

Massachusetts, in regard to legalized gambling, cited statistical

evidence of increases in street crime in Nevada and Atlantic City,

public corruption, involvement of local officials in land speculation

and profiteering, efforts to dilute the regulatory controls, and the

hiring of many former public officials by casinos. In New Jersey, the

deputy director of operations, division of financial evaluation and

control, New Jersey casino control commission, states that a person can

audit virtually every piece of paper generated by a casino and never

detect whether theft, embezzlement or skimming has occurred.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I don't raise these issues, cite this evidence, to initiate undue

alarm. I simply present the evidence to the minister because I know

that the minister's long-term objective may involve the further

liberalization of laws presently restricting legalized gambling in this

province. By liberalizing our regulations regarding commercial bingo,

we take those first fleeting steps towards legalized gambling. My

conclusion is that I don't think the people of British Columbia would

like to see this province become the Nevada of the north.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, it's always interesting to listen to a

school teacher lecture the House, Mr. Chairman. First I want to comment

on his suggestion, which he has repeated on numerous occasions, that he

has made certain information available to me regarding infractions in

the operation of bingo halls in the Okanagan. I'll repeat again: he

made no information available to me — none whatsoever. He submitted

some information, which I consider to be nonsensical information, to

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith).

[ Page 6604 ]

The Attorney-General is investigating that so-called information.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, the minister has implied

that I have not honoured the commitment that was requested of me in

this House. That commitment has been honoured, and I suggest that....

If the minister did not receive that information that was made

available, how did he know the details of that information if it was

not made available?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

The member will have an opportunity, after the recognized member has

completed his presentation in debate, to stand up and correct any

matter that the minister might state which might be incorrect.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is very touchy on that particular

issue. He did not submit any information to me. He submitted some

information to the Attorney-General. Even though I had requested the

information, he thought it more appropriate to give it to the

Attorney-General. So that's where it rests. I'm sure that the

Attorney-General will respond to that so-called evidence in due course.

The member asks whether there have been surveys on attitudes

regarding gambling in British Columbia. No, there have been no surveys.

The reason for that is that the government of British Columbia is not

in favour of legalized gambling in this province. One also has to take

into consideration the fact that legalized gambling casinos, which he

suggested are on the horizon for British Columbia.... That is false

because before you can have casinos in any part of this country you

have to have an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. From my

discussions with federal ministers in recent months, I want to assure

you that they're not prepared to make any amendments — not that I've

suggested there should be some amendments to the Criminal Code

vis-à-vis casinos. But they are going to be tightening up the Criminal

Code of Canada to make sure that other provinces — not British

Columbia, because the government of British Columbia's position is that

we're against legalized gambling in this province.... There are other

provinces that may be interested in casinos, and the federal government

will make sure that that doesn't take place in this country.

I visited Winnipeg during the Easter break to look at some of their

lottery activities there, some of their casinos and so forth. I think

that Manitoba has the closest thing to legalized gambling in the

country. We don't have those kinds of casino operations, which are

there to raise funds for non-profit organizations but are very

carefully monitored and controlled by the provincial government. I went

to a casino one night while I was in Winnipeg meeting with the

minister, Eugene Kostyra, and Garth Manness, the general manager of the

Manitoba Lotteries Foundation, just to see how those casinos are

conducted in the province of Manitoba. I found that at this casino

there were about 400 or more people playing blackjack and roulette at

about ten o'clock at night. This particular casino was to go on for a

period of 14 days, and the purpose was to raise funds for private

schools in the province of Manitoba. This was about the twelfth day of

that particular casino. I asked the supervisor or manager of that

particular casino — I was going to call him the pit boss — whether they

would reach their objective of $500,000 in 14 playing days. The answer

was yes, they would raise $500,000 for private schools.

So I found that Manitoba has the closest thing to legalized gambling

casinos of any province in this country. I know the same thing takes

place in Alberta, because I've seen the casinos in Alberta. I've

attempted to understand just how they're operated by the non-profits

there, but closely supervised by the government to ensure they're as

honest as a gambling game can possibly be.

I want to say that you can't even.... It's like night and day

comparing the kind of regulations we have in British Columbia with

those in Manitoba. The maximum bet you can make on a blackjack table in

British Columbia is $5. There's virtually no limit in the province of

Manitoba. You can bet up to $50 on a blackjack game. So it's virtually

limitless. It's almost like Las Vegas as far as bets are concerned.

There are a few minimum-$2-bet tables and other tables called

minimum-$5, maximum-$50.

So I found the closest thing to legalized casinos in Manitoba. They

even have an inducement for people to arrive early. The place opens at

11:00 a.m. and closes at 1:00 a.m. The first 200 people arriving after

11:00 a.m. are given $5 each to play whatever game — roulette or

blackjack. In other words, they are giving away $1,000 each and every

day to encourage people to come early. That's the place I found where

legalized gambling is the closest thing to casinos, with the exception

that it is closely monitored and watched by the provincial government.

MR. MacWILLIAM: With respect to the casinos in Manitoba, the

minister basically also mentioned the point that the reason for the

casinos is for the raising of funds for a particular community purpose.

I think that the minister would agree with me that under most

jurisdictions certain fundraising purposes are allowed to run these

non-profit casinos. I don't think there is really any difference — but

you might correct me — throughout Canada.

However, I'm very pleased that the minister has gone on record as

saying that this government opposes any further liberalization of

gaming laws, in terms of the possibility of legalizing gambling —

legalized casinos — in British Columbia. I'm glad that he's made that

statement. It relieves concerns that I have addressed, concerns that

have been cited in the literature in terms of the accompanying social

degradation and crime that seems to accompany such operations, as has

been recorded time and time again. I thank the minister for giving a

direct response and for going on record stating his position. With

that, I think I will close my remarks and allow somebody else some time.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to change the pace entirely and do

something that all of us in this House have to do on occasion, which is

to talk about constituency issues. I'm going to talk about one that the

minister and his deputy and others in the ministry and in other

ministries are aware of, and that's the Campbell River Museum.

I guess the argument that I've had with the ministry for some time

now that the temporary cancellation, or I guess the moratorium, imposed

on the community rec facilities fund program means that those projects

can't be alternately funded by lottery rants has created some problems

for us in this particular application, inasmuch as I really have some

trouble understanding how a specific request for assistance for exhibit

construction and furnishing costs has anything to do

[ Page

6605 ]

with the community rec facilities fund. The

government's argument has been all along that this particular Lottery

Fund application, which was submitted on March 27, 1984....

HON. MR. CHABOT: April.

MR. GABELMANN: It's signed March 27, 1984. It may well have

arrived in the offices in April, so in your files it would have been

April because that's when it arrived, but the application was dated

March 27, 1984.

In any event, we've had this continuing argument, and I guess I just

want to quickly sort it out if we can. The lotteries branch is saying

no, this particular application is not eligible because it would

normally be funded by community rec. The museum society, on July 17,

1984, sent a letter to the minister reconfirming that they have

appealed to the Lottery Fund for assistance to develop the major

exhibits and to furnish the facility. "We are raising funds elsewhere

for the construction." In the minister's reply to that letter — and the

minister's letter is undated, but was received on August 10 — the

minister says: "Normally, as you are aware, capital assistance grants

for construction of new facilities like yours would have been

considered by the recreational facilities assistance program. Such

funding included fixtures, furnishings and fittings required to

complete the facility. For a museum this included exhibits."

There seems to me to have been a failure to completely understand

what the application was for. It was not for construction. It was not

for the normal kind of assistance that would be up to one-third of

capital construction. The application was specifically and clearly

worded to suggest that they wanted assistance for construction of

furnishings costs.

[10:45]

When I go through other applications that have been approved by the

lotteries branch — none have been approved in that amount, I grant, at

least not recently — there are any number of projects that appear to be

less worthy of consideration than this one under the apparent terms of

reference. I cite the art gallery in Penticton. This is the April to

September 1984

summary.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It was $30,000 to "build a new art gallery."

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the difficulties I've had in this

continuing debate, Mr. Chairman, is that whenever I find an example of

some grant that's been approved, I'm told: "Well, this was prior to the

moratorium on the...."

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's a legacy.

MR. GABELMANN: Oh, it's a legacy. What we want to build in Campbell River is a legacy for all time.

Let me just say two things in respect to trying to find a solution to this.

One is that I would urge the minister to try to find a solution within the existing

guidelines in respect of the Lottery Fund. If that continues to prove impossible,

I'd like to get some idea as to when the recreational facilities assistance

fund is likely to be reopened. I notice the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

Michael) the other day made the same appeal. It's something that's really

quite essential, I think, in this province.

Let me just say very quickly what the economic rationale is on this

particular project. We're talking about a $2.9 million construction

project. Most of the money, in fact well over half the money, is coming

from out of province, from federal government sources and from private

foundations out of province. The community has in the last few weeks —

not more than six weeks now — raised $100,000 in Campbell River from

local people like me putting in $300 apiece, and that kind of thing. We

raised $100,000 in a very short period of time, and the fund-raising

has just really started. I'll be going to a dance on Friday night

that's part of that fundraising project. It's something that has the

complete and entire support of the community, as I'm sure the minister

doesn't need to be told.

What we're talking about here is an ability to generate construction

jobs, using non-British Columbia money for the most part; an

opportunity to create permanent jobs and to create a tourist-related

destination, in fact. This is something that is very big in Japan.

They're expressing great interest in this particular project because of

the links between the west coast native people and the Japanese native

people that have really been developed in recent times between Campbell

River and a place called Ishikari. So there are a lot of spinoffs that

can come economically and from a whole variety of points of view.

But the hangup, the single hangup, in this whole project is that

federal money which is being committed is hinged on provincial

contributions. The federal government says that unless the provincial

government shows some financial support for this project, we can't free

up the federal money. Here we are.... The application was for $400,000.

I'm sure that numbers are negotiable, and I'm not arguing for the

$400,000; I'm arguing for financial contribution of some kind so that

the federal money can kick in, and so that the thing can get underway.

It's the most frustrating local issue that I've been involved in in my

time as the member for North Island, and I'd appreciate the minister's

comments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I think I'll probably comment

on the Penticton Art Gallery. It's similar to the games. When we hold

the Summer and Winter Games, we leave a legacy behind for a specific

purpose. In Penticton, after the Festival of the Arts, we left a legacy

of $70,000 for the arts, and we'll be doing the same thing in Prince

George when the Festival of the Arts is held next year. In Nanaimo this

summer we'll be leaving a legacy for sports. So first of all we left

the $70,000 legacy in Penticton, but I topped it up and gave an

additional $30,000 over and above the $70,000 from lotteries.

The reason for that, really, is the fact that the federal government

again was involved. They were prepared to make a contribution to the

art gallery in Penticton, contingent upon the Penticton Art Gallery

being able to get a contribution of $100,000 from the provincial

government. So that's why I topped it up. I gave an additional $30,000,

kind of a hopefully non-precedent-setting kind of situation so that

they could attract those federal funds. So that's where you see the

$30,000 for the art gallery in Penticton.

Of course, Campbell River faces the same situation with federal

funds. It's contingent upon the province. I don't like that kind of

approach on the part of the national government, but nevertheless

that's the way they do it. They want to see

[ Page 6606 ]

some interest on the part of the province for

particular projects. The only point you haven't clarified for me on

their application, which is a well-documented and well-supported

application for Campbell River.... Is there an expiry date on the

federal contribution — I think that's very important — or is that an

open commitment from the federal government? Maybe you'd want to

clarify that. We think that that particular proposal is a first-class

one. It would be high on our list of projects to be funded once the

moratorium has been removed. I expect the moratorium will be removed

fairly soon — within a matter of weeks.

The other issue, of course, is the amount. I think there was some

concern in the ministry about the $400,000 amount. I'm glad to hear the

member say that it is negotiable; I don't know if he's prepared to give

me another number.

But that's the situation. Once the moratorium.... Of course, RFAP

projects are not funded. What happens is that as the lottery funds

build up, we find an opportunity to make contributions to various

facilities — museums, art galleries and recreational facilities —

throughout the province. As I indicated, this project is one which is

high on our list.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm pleased to hear the indication that in a

few weeks or so the program will be reinstituted. If I remember

correctly, under that program the maximum grant was originally

one-third of a million. If the minister is looking for a new figure,

that would be the one that I would be prepared to throw out.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: We've quickly dropped $67,000. But seriously,

I think that if that program were to be started again and the original

rules were to apply — which is capital up to a maximum of one-third of

a million — then I think that's the kind of thing we'd be talking

about, in reasonable terms.

As far as the federal money goes, and whether there is a time limit

on it, my understanding was that it was available in the last fiscal

year — the one that expired March 31. The money had been set aside

awaiting a provincial decision. The change of government left some

confusion as to whether or not it would continue to be available. My

understanding as of a few weeks ago was that the money was still

available, but wouldn't be for long. From the federal government's

point of view, that's reasonable. They're not going to hold this money

in abeyance forever, awaiting decisions elsewhere. So I understand that

money is still available. I know the private money is still available.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you know how much it is?

MR. GABELMANN: In rough terms, the $2.9 million was to be

made up of about $400,000 from the province, about $400,000 from the

community, and $2.1 million was to come from national sources. One

million of this was private, which was committed by a national

organization, and $1.1 million was to come from two different federal

funding agencies. Those numbers are off the top of my head, but I

believe them to be, if not accurate, then pretty close to accurate and

certainly in the ballpark. So we're talking about a little over

one-third of the money from federal agencies, about one-third from a

national private organization, and a little less than one-third jointly

from the community and the province. As it turns out, if we go to the

recreational grant approach, the community will have raised more money

than we get from the province. But I believe the community has

demonstrated an ability to raise that kind of money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Will.... The member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: If the government is looking for a good MLA for Willingdon, I could probably handle both ridings.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I could, if I really wanted to.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to the minister about....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right, and I want an up-to-date report on

what has been going on, not just in his ministry but in all of the

public service, on the status of women. I've been doing this every year

since 1972, so I'm hoping that the minister anticipated my

intervention, and that he has shown up on the floor today with a full

report. I want the up-to-date statistics on where women are in the

public sector. I want to be told that they are no longer locked into

clerical ghettos at the bottom, that they have in fact been taking

advantage of the program which he told us about in February of this

year, Taking Charge of Your Career. I'd like to have some up-to date

statistics on that.

I'm also wondering whether, in response to the Abella report on

employment equity, the provincial government is taking any parallel

steps with the federal government, in terms of really trying to get

women's incomes up in Crown corporations as well as in the public

service itself.

In addition, I'm wondering whether the minister would consider

updating the very good report which was done in 1979 for the equal

employment opportunities committee of the Public Service Commission.

The last report we have on that was 1979. Is there going to be one for

1985 or 1986? This is an excellent report; and the minister should get

in the habit of updating it. It should become a habit.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It'll be updated pretty soon.

MS. BROWN: "Pretty soon" is not good enough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Burnaby Edmonds has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister seems eager and anxious

of give me an up-to-date report on where women are in the public

sector. I'm hoping that there are up-to-date statistics, and also maybe

even a copy of the printout, which I know he has, so that I could be

better informed and better able to ask better questions with each

passing year, and able to better appreciate the work that he is doing

in terms of employment equity for women in the public service.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'll just give you some of the

information I have here on women in British Columbia's public service.

In this ministry the number of women in middle and senior management

positions has increased from

[ Page

6607 ]

two in 1979 to 14 in 1984, a 600 percent increase.

Women hold 15.9 percent of the middle and senior management positions

in the ministry, compared to 5.5 percent in 1979. Compared to 1981,

just a little less than four years ago, when there were no women

earning over $35,000 in the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and

Government Services, there are now 24. For government as a whole there

are now 152 women in middle and senior management, compared to 75 in

1979, which is a hundred percent increase. Women hold 9.9 percent of

the management positions in the B.C. public service; this compares

favourably to the 5.9 percent female managers in the federal public

service that was quoted from the Abella report during debate of Bill 35.

While there is still a gap between the female average salary and the

male average salary, it is narrower than the gap in Manitoba, which was

quoted during the debate, again, on Bill 35. The Manitoba figure was

used to support a call for an affirmative action plan protected by

statute. In Manitoba in 1984 the female average salary for a provincial

sector worker was 73 percent of her male counterpart's; in the B.C.

public service it was 79 percent.

In addition to increased numbers of women in middle and senior

management, the wage gap between male and female managers is also

narrowing. The female manager's average salary is now 88 percent of her

male counterpart's: it was 86 percent in 1979.

[11:00]

On the report that you raised, I just want to confirm that my deputy

and the deputy minister for women's affairs — I guess now it's not

women's affairs — in the Ministry of Labour, Isabel Kelly.... They've

had discussions about the updating of that particular report, the 1979

report. They're in the process of taking affirmative action to update

those figures.

MS. BROWN: The only question the minister hasn't answered is

the one dealing with extending these actions to cover Crown

corporations, because they're also very important. If you'll notice in

the federal plan that they have for dealing with employment equity —

which is the term that we now use, Mr. Chairman; we don't use

"affirmative action" anymore, even though it means the same thing....

Employment equity" is the new term, not "affirmative action."

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MS. BROWN: Yes. "Affirmative action" dates you.

What about the Crown corporations, as is the plan in the federal

government, and also the Taking Charge of Your Career program? What's

happening to that — the one which you talked about in February?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm informed that next Tuesday we'll be

holding a seminar to deal with the issue of employment equity, and that

all the directors in my ministry will be participating in this

employment equity seminar, along with knowledgeable people or

professional people in the private sector, and from the federal

government as well.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Maybe the minister will give me the address and

time of the seminar, because I'm sure it is open to the public. If I'm

in the neighbourhood, I wouldn't mind....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It's not open? It's private? It's confidential.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now what do we have here. The member continues?

MS. BROWN: We were actually doing quite well, thank you.

I was just wondering if the minister then would share with me the

information which comes out of the seminar in terms of any resolutions

or any plans for implementation.

I notice the member behind him reading the newsletter. It's really good stuff, and I appreciate being on the mailing list.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Actually what is taking place next Tuesday

in the seminars is kind of a staff meeting of directors and so forth.

I'd be glad to make the results of that seminar available to you.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, good morning once again to the hon.

Provincial Secretary. I believe the Provincial Secretary was going to

return with some information respecting the proportions of the Lottery

Fund that are used specifically for the arts.

When the Provincial Secretary deals with that question, could he as

well give the gross revenues that the Lottery Fund generated in

1984-85? I don't suppose you have those figures up to date, but I would

like to know the gross amount of money that was generated through the

sale of lottery tickets for fiscal year 1984-85, the portion used for

administration, the portion that was paid out for prizes and the amount

that was remaining for grants — gross, prizes, grants.

I've looked at the figures in the estimates for the year. Let's see

if I can locate those. My memory isn't too good, but was it around $60

million that you estimated? I have to look it up. Do you remember the

estimate? I guess I was thinking it was a lot higher than that. That's

the concern I have, because you were anticipating something like $8

million, or in that neighbourhood, for grants in 1985-86.

The other question is with respect to the status of the Cultural

Fund. That's a $20 million fund that the government has had for a

number of years. It yields approximately $1.5 million for grants.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ....special fund.

MR. BARNES: Yes. I guess what I am trying to see is the total

amount of moneys that are available from the two sources, one through

lotteries and the other through the special funds. To what extent are

the funds made available through the consolidated revenue directly from

taxes?

It takes a little bit of research in order to make the case that I

wanted to. How has the government been funding the arts over the past

few years? I haven't got the figures before me. One of the problems is

that we're never quite sure just how much is being funded through

lotteries. That's difficult

[ Page 6608 ]

to calculate. So if you could assist me with that, I'd appreciate it.

In the meantime, could I just reflect a little bit on some of the

other questions that were raised the other day before I get into the

final subject of multiculturalism and government policy with respect to

that? I'd like to just wind up a few matters dealing with the arts.

I have before me quite a large number of letters. Most of these are

addressed to the Minister of Education, dealing with elective programs

in the public school system that were cut as a result of restraint

being imposed on the various school districts. I won't read all of

these into the record. Most of these are from my constituency, but I'm

sure every MLA received them from their own constituencies. It's quite

a remarkable thing.

We were talking the other day about the youth participating in the

political process and exercising their democratic rights. I should say,

and I'm sure the minister will certainly acknowledge it as well, that

we've seen considerable participation by young people this past year.

They have felt directly affected by the political decisions of their

senior government. Probably the one thing that has stimulated them to

action has been the loss of certain basic programs that were provided

because of the latitude available to the various school districts —

such programs as the sport programs, after-school programs, drama

programs and various electives that normally wouldn't be available

unless the scope was allowed to the school districts. When the Minister

of Education brought strict guidelines down in terms of what the

budgets had to cover, the first things that seemed to be cut were the

programs to deal with fine arts, sports programs and various cultural

activities. The consequences were such that many of these young people

began to write letters to their MLAs, Members of Parliament, city

councils and to anyone who would listen. Of course, they were

demonstrating, holding public meetings, etc. I think we are familiar

with that scenario.

I would like the minister to clarify for us what the government's

position is with respect to restoring these essential programs. I think

the case is being made time and time again by educators, who really are

dumbfounded and at a loss for strategies to try to demonstrate the

severity of what is happening as a result of the cutbacks in the

special programs.

One problem, obviously, is that while the business of education may

come under one ministry, millions of programs that take place in the

public school facilities are the responsibility of other ministries. Of

course, Provincial Secretary is one and Health is another. There is a

need for a kind of interministerial policy with respect to continuity

of essential services and programs.

Perhaps before I go too far we could deal with that part on the lotteries and get that out of the way.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member has asked a lot of questions

regarding cultural grants. I want to say that the administration of the

cultural branch in my ministry has a cost of about $550,000, and then

we do give grants to the various cultural groups throughout British

Columbia. Some $1.5 million of that funding comes from the special

purpose fund, and then we give from lotteries over and above, which

would include the cultural heritage advisory. We give about $5.5

million, for a total of $7 million, to cultural activities in the

province

The member wanted to know what the situation was regarding the

funding of the cultural groups in recent years. Because of restraint

and the turndown in the economy, it's been a status quo situation.

We've maintained the funding. We have not cut back any of the funding

to the cultural groups in the province. We have increased the funding

this year by an amount of $100,000 on the grant side for cultural

groups in British Columbia, as well as the Expo-related touring in

B.C., which is another $200,000 over and above what we've given

heretofore.

[11:15]

So I think that probably covers the figures, with the exception

of.... I think the member was asking what our gross revenue is on

lotteries in British Columbia. The gross revenue would be in the

vicinity of $250 million.

MR. BARNES: Gross is $250 million. What portion is

administration? What portion goes for prizes? What amount would be left

for grants to be distributed to those various applicants?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, for grants, $69,340,000 is available for disbursement.

MR. BARNES: Under B.C. Lottery perhaps you could clarify

this. Not being an accountant and understanding the details that are

not elaborated on very much, this is something that I find.... The

government has voted or will be voting expenditures of $10, which

basically means it's just a formality for the lotteries. So the figure

you just gave doesn't reflect anyplace in your ministry under your

ministry's operations. At least as far as I can see, I can't find that

figure you gave anywhere.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The estimates show $69,340,000 available for

disbursements to various worthwhile and necessary causes throughout the

province. The figure does not show the gross. I might be high when I

say $250 million as potential revenue, but it's in that vicinity, I'd

have to say.

The other detailed information that you're seeking would probably be

contained within the annual report of the Western Canada Lottery

Foundation. Of course, we're no longer participants in the Western

Canada Lottery Foundation. As chairman of the board of the B.C. Lottery

Corporation, I want to say that once we've had our first fiscal year

come to a conclusion, we will be putting together an annual report. And

at that time all the intricate details which you're seeking will

probably be available.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just advise the minister and the member

that we do have a bill before the House, and we may be anticipating

legislation in this debate. That remark is specifically for the

minister, not for you, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I just want to thank my colleague for allowing me

to get in just one thing ahead of him, Mr. Chairman, because I won't be

here this afternoon, and he will be here.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I know. I'm going to a funeral, unfortunately.

[ Page 6609 ]

The B.C. Government Employees' Union asked the Provincial Secretary

for permission to check off from their dues some funds which they

wanted to contribute to the unemployment action centres and the food

banks. The Provincial Secretary refused them permission to do that. I

guess the Provincial Secretary wasn't aware of the real crisis that we

have in this province in terms of people going hungry and depending on

the food banks and on the employment action centres.

However, the Provincial Secretary has permitted a check-off for the

purchasing of Expo 86 passes, and I'm kind of wondering whether, now

that a precedent has set and the Provincial Secretary has indicated

that it's okay to pay for your passes off your payroll deduction — for

a deduction to be made to cover the cost of your Expo 86 pass — if he

would be willing to reconsider his position in terms of those

government employees who would like to contribute to the unemployment

action centres and to the food banks in British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the member

regarding the unemployment action centres, first of all the B.C.

Federation of Labour asked the B.C. unions to take up the funding

because the federal government stopped the funding at the end of 1984,

and most unions did make a commitment. The BCGEU undertook to raise $10

per head, for a total of about $350,000. They asked us several months

ago to accept a payroll deduction from the employees, and they were

told at that time that there was no field available on the computer as

the last one was used by Expo. They attempted to have us include this

deduction in the slot designated for charitable contributions. They

further informed us that the unemployment action centres are not

incorporated as charitable societies. Further, the charitable deduction

field is not available. It is currently overused. There are ten slots,

15 items. T-4s reflect charitable deductions, and a non-charity would

have to be manually removed for tax purposes, at considerable expense.

So based on that, and on our inability to handle this kind of a

request because of the computer being fully occupied, we've had no

alternative but to turn them down. We've suggested alternative ways for

them to raise funds.

MS. BROWN: One of the things you can do when you have a

number of ministries on computers is use each other's computer time and

computer space, and that kind of thing. You can make a deal with

Health. They have the most sophisticated, up-to-date and outstanding

computer system I have ever seen. I went to Sweden just to talk about

the computer system in Health. I'm very impressed with it. I am quite

convinced that they would be willing to cooperate with the Provincial

Secretary if your computer is old-fashioned and out-of-date and not

state-of-the-art, as Health is. Maybe even Human Resources.

But if there is on your part a real sense of the urgency and the

need which these food banks have, and the unemployment action centres,

something can be worked out, despite the fact that they do not have

charitable status, so that those employees in your service who want it

checked off their payroll at source to help these two resources, which

just sprang up in our community.... They weren't put in place by

government or anything. They just sprang up as a direct result of the

hunger in the community, and the unemployment situation and poverty

situation.

I think the minister can do it if he really sets his mind to it.

You're smart enough. I think you're clever enough. I also think you

have access to other resources in the government so that you would be

able to make this happen. So would you, if you can't deal with it

specifically through your own ministry, give a commitment that you will

look at other alternatives, explore other alternatives, so that those

people employed by the public service commission who want to make

donations directly out of their paycheques at source will be able to do

so, because the food banks and the unemployment action centres are in a

crisis situation in the province at this time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a brief response, Mr. Chairman. First

of all, the computer I made the reference about is not a computer that

belongs in the Provincial Secretary ministry or Government Services.

It's the Ministry of Finance computer that puts the payroll out. We're

informed by the Minister of Finance that they are unable to accommodate

this particular request, and because of that situation I guess the only

alternative.... We've been told in no uncertain terms that there is no

ability to handle it on the computer, so under the circumstances I

think the union should make a plea to its members to make a voluntary

contribution to help out the food banks.

MR. COCKE: Just one word, Mr. Chairman. Providing the food

banks become registered societies with tax relief, could the minister

include them or those donations under the proper category? I'm asking

that question because my understanding is that the feds are going to

give them that status very shortly. The question is: if in fact they

are tax-deductible, would you provide the column that is allocated for

that purpose?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Really, the decision is not mine to make.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, it's not my jurisdiction. I understand

there is an independent committee of bureaucrats that looks at these

kinds of issues, and they make the determination. But it's not in my

ministry.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we were given the impression that

that minister actually has some jurisdiction. Now we find that he has

no jurisdiction. He's the minister in charge of government employees in

this province, and he can't even make a decision as minute and

minuscule as this. What are we doing even discussing his estimates?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll take it under active consideration.

MR. BARNES: Well, I would love to get in on the debate about

the food banks, but I'll save that for another time. I just want to get

back now to another subject, dealing with your responsibility,

multicultural programs.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I just want to say that

in recent months there has been a change of responsibilities in

cabinet. I used to be the chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Cultural

Heritage. I'm no longer there, having been given responsibility for

B.C. Place. I believe the boss

[ Page 6610 ]

felt that maybe there should be some lessening of

the burden on the shoulders of the poor Provincial Secretary. He then

made the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) chairman of

that particular committee. While I continue to serve as a member, I

think the responsibility rests more directly with the Minister of Human

Resources, rather than the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Government Services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair had trouble following

the point of order, which appeared to be nothing more than a statement.

Perhaps the....

HON. MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that multicultural activities don't come under this ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, yes, but I note in the estimates, Hon.

Minister — and I don't want to enter into debate myself — that we have

the British Columbia Cultural Fund among your special statutory funds.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There's a difference between multicultural activities and cultural activities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the explanation. We can proceed.

[11:30]

MR. BARNES: Well, I find that really about the most

interesting revelation I've heard in a long time on the part of that

member, who is suggesting that he's not the minister responsible for

something which is in his estimates. That is incredible. But leaving it

up to that member, he always has a way of dealing with these matters.

So rather than talk about multiculturalism, let's talk about one

culture at a time. [Laughter.] I tell you, this is really a very

humorous session. I'm enjoying this, you know. The minister is no

longer the chairman of the committee, but he is still a member of the

committee, I presume, in some capacity or other.

MR. COCKE: He doles out the bucks.

MR. BARNES: He knows that.

I would like to refer the minister to a study that was completed by

the immigrant services society — that is, the Affiliation of

Multicultural Societies of British Columbia. They did a paper in

January 1985 — very recent. I don't know if you have that, but it makes

reference to a matter that I would like to just share with the House

and the minister for a little background. This particular quote starts

on page 9. It says:

"Turning next to the involvement of the B.C.

government in the area of multiculturalism, the first major initiative

occurred in April of 1979, when the B.C. government and the Affiliation

of Multicultural Societies of B.C. sponsored a conference entitled

'Toward A Provincial Multicultural Policy.' Premier Bennett identified

the objective as: '...identifying policy goals and program activities

the provincial government might consider in the multicultural

field...we wish to hear from the various multicultural communities in

the province as we develop our policy in this important subject area."'

"Eleven recommendations and resolutions were generated

from the conference. In June 1981, the B.C. government appointed an

advisory committee on cultural heritage headed by Judge Norman Oreck to

analyze these recommendations. The committee travelled the province and

in March 1982 submitted a lengthy report including its own

recommendations and ways and means for implementation. Few of these

recommendations have been acted upon and B.C. still has no formal

multicultural policy.

"Rather than establishing a ministry of

multiculturalism as at the federal level, the B.C. government set up

the cultural heritage program in 1980. This structure created the

position of 'cultural heritage adviser,' whose task is to maintain

contact with the ethnocultural groups in the province and inform the

government of their concerns. The adviser is beyond the official ranks

of government and has limited authority. He is responsible to the

Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage made up of four cabinet

ministers" — including the Provincial Secretary. "Meetings between the

adviser and the committee are arranged infrequently when needs and

concerns of the multicultural communities are voiced."

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

"In 1982-83, Public Accounts showed that $171,895 was

spent by the cultural heritage adviser in operating his office. The sum

which was allocated by the Ministry of Provincial Secretary to the

office of the cultural heritage adviser for 1983-84 was $225,000 and

for 1984-85, also $225,000. The cultural heritage adviser has the

authority to give small grants to ethnic communities. In 1984 these

grants amounted to about $75,000."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Remember the $75,000.

In addition, he was allowed to publish a monthly called Link , a bulletin on ethnocultural community events, as well as an irregular publication entitled Living Heritage .

"The provincial government did have a program entitled the refugee

settlement program, under which voluntary organizations providing

settlement services for immigrants and refugees could receive funds.

This program was ended in September 1983 under the provincial restraint

program. Its budget for 1981-82 had been $381,853 and for 1982-83,

$416,450." Clearly that's not very much money, Mr. Chairman; $75,000

seems to be the only amount of money that was spent during this

reporting year that was available to the heritage adviser to the

minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order. I don't mind the

member.... I don't know what his point is going to be — if he's going

to read from lengthy reports, or whether it's a deliberate attempt to

delay or what — but I just want to clarify one point: the cultural

heritage adviser comes under the auspices of the Minister of Human

Resources, not the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BARNES: I certainly want to hear the minister's responses and what he has to contribute, but I think he is

[ Page 6611 ]

abusing the rules when he stands up and makes a statement, claiming it to be a point of order. I think he's out of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point of order, the member

suggested that the cultural heritage adviser is under the

responsibility of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government

Services. He's making constant reference to the cultural heritage

adviser. I want to say that the cultural heritage adviser answers to

the Minister of Human Resources and not to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would appear to be a reasonable point of

order in that it's not within the sphere of the minister's estimates.

The Chair was having some difficulty in that we are debating the

estimates of 1985-86. The Chair was allowing certain leeway,

anticipating a comparison that has not come to the floor.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I notice in the

estimates under the Provincial Secretary an amount of $553,531 for the

cultural services of this province. Maybe the book that we were

supplied with by the Minister of Finance is in error. There is a great

deal more, Mr. Chairman, and they are listed, if you will: "Cultural,

recreation and historical resources: Provincial Museum, Provincial

Archives, heritage conservation...." etc. We're talking in terms of

$4.6 million, $1.5 million. Heritage conservation is $1.6 million, and

cultural services is $555,000. What is happening? Cultural services has

always been financed by the Provincial Secretary, and it would appear

by these massive figures that he still has a mighty hand in that

particular disposition. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I feel that my

colleague is certainly within his bounds talking in terms of culture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Debate on matters set out within the minister's

estimates under the votes would certainly be in order. However, I think

the House should be in a position to accept the minister's statement

that a specific item, which may have a similar nomenclature as in the

estimates but is not identical and is not within his mandate, would

then, accordingly, not be in order under the debate of the minister's

estimates.

MR. BARNES: I can say that in the nearly 13 years that I've

been in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I've

heard of a minister, with such overwhelming evidence printed up by the

government as a statement of his proposed expenditures, say that he has

no responsibility for them. This is absolutely shocking! But I'm not

surprised. As I say, the minister — the Provincial Secretary — is very

adept at the game of politics, and he will use any tactic he can to

throw the opposition off — any tactic he can, even a direct frontal

attack such as this against a member who is attempting to represent

scores and scores of people in this community of various ethnic

backgrounds.

Mr. Chairman, this minister says he has no responsibility. He

suggests that the Minister of Human Resources has responsibility. Let's

take a look at the Minister of Human Resources' estimates and see if we

can see anything under there about multiculturalism. I won't bother to

look, but I'm sure that if we look we'll find that that minister as

well probably is assuming no responsibility for what's under her

estimates. She certainly isn't assuming any responsibility for those

very low rates on social assistance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: I didn't start the subject, Mr. Chairman; the Provincial Secretary did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on vote 60, the estimates of the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, not the

Ministry of Human Resources.

MR. BARNES: In the province of British Columbia, there are a

very large number of different cultures and races of people. A survey

was taken in 1981, and it was population by selected ethnic origin. In

other words, those people who were surveyed were given the opportunity

of expressing where they felt their main ethnic background should be.

Just listen to the list. In the province of British Columbia, 3,445

people felt they were of African background, and 2,570 of those were in

the city of Vancouver; 840 Armenians in British Columbia, 795 in

Vancouver; people of Asian-Arab.... You know, we don't know very much

about our culture. If you look at this list, you would be amazed at how

complex multiculturalism is in British Columbia. Just consider the

kinds of needs that are necessary.

[11:45]

I'm just going to run down the list real quick. There are 2,970

people of Asian-Arab ancestry in British Columbia, 2,305 of them in the

city of Vancouver. Australian: 9,030 in B.C., 4,620 in Vancouver;

Balkan: 15,910 in B.C., 9,625 in Vancouver; Baltic: 4,585 in B.C.,

2,760 in Vancouver; Belgium-Luxembourg: 3,830 in B.C., 1,444 in

Vancouver; British: 1,385,170 in B.C., 612,140 in Vancouver; Chinese:

96,910 in B.C., 83,845 in Vancouver; Czech-Slovak: 10,407 in B.C.,

5,350 in Vancouver; Dutch: 72,280 in B.C., 28,220 in Vancouver;

Finnish: 10,805 in B.C., 5,735 in Vancouver; French: 92,305 in B.C.,

36,815 in Vancouver; German: 187,625 in B.C., 73,935 in Vancouver;

Greek: 8,390 in B.C., 6,215 in Vancouver.

I didn't know that people of Hungarian descent were called Magyar,

but there you go. You learn. Maybe I'm helping a few of you in here as

well. There are 15,920 people of Hungarian descent in the province,

with 8,070 in Vancouver; Indo-Chinese: 4,410 in B.C., 2,250 in

Vancouver; Indo-Pakistani: 52,720 in B.C., 30,685 in Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, time has elapsed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm so interested in these numbers

that I feel it would be important for us to hear more. I therefore

provide this member with an opportunity, as an intervening speaker.

MR. BARNES: Shall I start over? Japanese: 16,040 in the

province, 11,715 in the city; Jewish: 13,170 in the province, 11,425 in

the city; North and South Americans — I'm not quite sure what that

means: 4,525, 3,025 in the city of Vancouver. Remember, Mr. Chairman,

that these are the perceptions that people have of their own ethnic

origin, so people have a right to a perception, I suppose, of where

they think they come from or how they feel about their ethnic

background. Native peoples: 64,690 in the province, 10,850 in the city

of Vancouver; the Pacific islands: 23,795 in the

[ Page 6612 ]

province, 11,500 in the city; Polish: 23,795 in the

province, 11,500 in the city; Portuguese: 16,120 in the province, 7,965

in the city; Romanian: 2,650 in the province, 1,260 in the city of

Vancouver; Russian: 19,610 in the province, 5,195 in the city.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Was that Prussian or Russian?

MR. BARNES: No, I didn't see any Prussians on this one.

Scandinavian: 85,040 in the province, 35,850 in the city; Spanish:

4,845 in the province, 3,340 in the city; Swiss: 6,335 in the province,

2,660 in the city of Vancouver; Ukrainian: 63,605 in the province,

29,280 in the city of Vancouver; West Asian: 1,765 in the province,

1,425 in the city of Vancouver. Get this, Mr. Provincial Secretary —

British and French: 42,955 in the province, 18,530 in the city of

Vancouver; British and other: 171,195 in the province of British

Columbia and 74,780 in the city of Vancouver; French and other....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't mix us up.

MR. BARNES: The people are just not sure. There are 15,285 in

British Columbia, and 6,290 in the city of Vancouver; British, French

and other: 17,475 in the province, 7,175 in the city of Vancouver;

European and other: 41,705 in the province, 18,895 in the city of

Vancouver; native people and other: 17,950 in the province, 5,340 in

the city of Vancouver. Then other single and/or multiple origins:

33,925, and 16,810.

Obviously, when you listen to a list like that, and you have a group

such as the affiliation of multicultural societies attempting to

main tongue; they perhaps speak all these different languages. In fact,

it is estimated that out of the nearly 450,000 students in British

language.

I'm just suggesting to the Provincial Secretary that this is a

complex matter. It involves some commitment of government funding, some

recognition of a need for these people to understand their citizenship,

understand the services that are available to them so that they can

participate. This is why I am wondering if the government has taken

seriously its promise in 1979, just before the election, that when it

held that special conference to discuss those needs of all those

people, you were kidding. As of today you still don't have a policy on

multiculturalism. It's a very serious matter.

I would now like to get to the heritage adviser, who is responsible

to this minister or to the committee, because $75,000 is hardly enough

money to seriously address the concerns of this vast community of

people in need.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada