1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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, APRIL 30, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5319 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981

(Bill PR402). Mr. Ree.

Introduction and first reading –– 5319

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 5319

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5320

Mr. Lauk

Housing Corporation of B.C. Mr. Nicolson –– 5321

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

On vote 164: minister's office –– 5321

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Davis

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. King

Mr. Kempf

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Barber

Mr. Levi

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Marketing Board annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5343

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I

am very pleased to introduce a visitor to the House who was a long-time

resident of Vancouver but who has now moved to the city of Victoria.

This is her first visit to the legislative building. Will the House

please welcome Mrs. Billie Crost.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, "Reach for the Top" is a television show on the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation which has competition among senior secondary

school students from both the public and the independent sector. This

year and last year our provincial government has been a co-sponsor of

the program, encouraging students to exhibit excellence in their

scholastic ability, which would show up in the quiz program.

This

year the winning school in British Columbia is Kamloops Secondary

School, which won the British Columbia competition against the other

semi-finalist, West Vancouver Secondary School. Kamloops will be

representing British Columbia in the national finals on May 2 at

Cornerbrook, Newfoundland.

I would ask the House to extend

congratulations to the winning team, who are present in the Speaker's

gallery today. The members are Tony Ryan, Jim Wold, Steve Rees and

Claudia Priest. They're accompanied by their principal, Mr. Gordon

Lloyd, and coaches Terry Munson and Fred Persello. I would ask the

House to welcome them as well.

A further note to do with the

"Reach for the Top" winners: to encourage the teams, the government

also has awarded annually a challenge trophy, known as the Premier's

Cup, and a $1,500 cheque to the winner. Both will be presented to the

winners in my office following question period today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I would like to join with the Premier in congratulating the students

from Kamloops who won this award. As you know, I lived in Kamloops for

a number of years and my daughters went to school in Kamloops. As a

matter of fact, my oldest daughter was born in Newfoundland where the

Canadian finals will be held.

MR. BARRETT: I join in

welcoming the students from Kamloops and wishing them every success in

Kamloops, as many eyes are on Kamloops as well this day.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

In the precincts this afternoon is a group of 26 grade six students

from General Gordon Elementary School in the constituency of

Vancouver–Point Grey, and they're accompanied by their teacher, Mr.

Stanton. I'd like hon. members to bid them welcome.

MR. KEMPF:

With us in the gallery this afternoon are several people from my

constituency of Omineca. They are Mr. and Mrs. John Giesbrecht of Ootsa

Lake, Mrs. and Mrs. Don Campbell, their daughter and son-in-law and

their four children from Burns Lake. I would ask the House to make them

all welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the House to

welcome today an old friend, Mr. Andrew Brewin, who was a long-time

Member of Parliament for Toronto-Greenwood; he's now spending part of

his vacation in the most beautiful province in Canada. He's with his

granddaughter Gillian, who is about to be married. So I'd like you to

welcome both Andrew and his granddaughter.

MR. STRACHAN:

In the precincts today is a group of elementary students from Foothills

Elementary School in Prince George. They're a great elementary choir,

as a matter of fact, and they're down here attending a music

competition. They're the Foothills Festival Kids. Their teacher is Miss

Rose Loewen. I would ask all members to give them a nice warm welcome

to the precincts.

Introduction of Bills

WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND

LIGHT COMPANY, LIMITED, ACT, 1897.

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill PR402, West

Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act,

1981, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

MR. HALL:

I was going to ask some questions of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs.

Jordan), but I see she's not in her seat again today, so I shall have

to defer the questions.

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. Mr. Ron Basford, the very high-profile B.C. representative

for coal development in the northeast, indicated the other day that

prairie farmers and the CNR are going to be subsidized by B.C. Rail, by

agreements entered into by the Social Credit government. Can the

minister now confirm whether or not they have the final figures that

BCR has promised in reduction of their rail rate to Teck and Denison on

the development? Is it still $1 a tonne?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'll take it on notice.

MR. LEGGATT:

Would the minister advise the House whether it's part of Mr. Basford's

responsibility to negotiate freight rates for BCR? If that's not part

of his responsibilities, would he tell the House what Mr. Basford's

responsibilities are, other than issuing press releases?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is somewhat facetious. He read the

press release and he knows full well that Mr. Basford was addressing a

transportation seminar. It was very well stated by Mr. Basford in that

press release — and that's why I say the question is facetious — that

indeed it was not his responsibility to negotiate freight rates for the

coal companies, either with British Columbia Railway or with Canadian

National Railways.

[ Page 5320 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, to the minister, Mr. Basford is clearly unhappy with the

terms that B.C. must be receiving on BCR, given their subsidy, versus

the rebate that CN is giving to Teck and Denison. In other words, it's

about two to one: BCR is kicking in twice as much as CNR in rebate, in

terms of freight rate. My question is: has the minister now given

consideration to renegotiating those freight rates with Teck and

Denison, given the fact that the taxpayers of British Columbia are now

about to subsidize those BCR rates, apparently for the benefit of CNR

and prairie farmers?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker,

in answer to the member's question, I should try to straighten him out

on a couple of things. First of all, the freight rate negotiated by

British Columbia Railway to haul coal from the great northeast

development will see British Columbia Railway and Canadian National

Railways not only recover the cost of transporting the coal but room

for a return on their investment and a profit. The member knows full

well that Mr. Basford was discussing the Crowsnest rate for hauling

grain. It has been British Columbia's and this government's position

for a number of years that commodities such as lumber, coal and other

products produced in British Columbia are paying for the movement of

grain off the Prairies. That's why we feel very strongly that the Crow

rate should be renegotiated. That has been my position in representing

this government at various meetings in Winnipeg. If the member did his

homework and found out what was going on in this province and in

western Canada, he would realize just how facetious his question is.

MR. LEGGATT:

On March 18 in this House the minister stated that BCR freight rates

moving northeast coal will be reduced from $4.88 to $3.88 a tonne. He

also stated that the reduction in the CN rate will also be $1 a tonne,

but their tonne rate is $10. BCR is giving twice the rebate that CN is.

My simple question is: why are we getting hosed in terms of B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member for Coquitlam-Moody would use question

period to ask questions and not to make statements which he knows are

not true. As I have stated before in this question period, the freight

rate negotiated for coal allows both Canadian National Railway and

British Columbia Railway to recover their costs and indeed make a

profit.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES:

I have a question to the Minister of Labour. A few months ago the

minister successfully stalled the opposition to the existence of the Ku

Klux Klan by the public generally when he promised to commission a

one-man study into the activities of the Ku Klux Klan. That

commissioner was Mr. John McAlpine, who, I understand, submitted his

report last week to the minister. I'm wondering if the minister at this

time has decided to table the full contents of that study, which he now

has in his possession.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't

recall the time when we asked Mr. McAlpine to prepare a report for the

government as being a few months ago. It seems to me like it was more

like a few weeks ago. I think the problem is well known to most members

in the assembly. The provisions of the Human Rights Code, as well as

the Criminal Code of Canada, are not adequate to address the problem

with respect to hate literature and the various things for which the Ku

Klux Klan is responsible. To fully inform the members opposite, it was

my wish to appoint a board of inquiry. It didn't make any difference

where I turned to get legal support as to whether or not we would be

successful in appointing a board in the ensuing hearing. At the time I

thought it might be worthwhile to appoint a board so there would at

least be a venue for all of us who were concerned to express their

views. The considered opinion was the appointment of someone

knowledgeable in this area who would submit to government a report

covering a number of areas.

The first draft of that report

was given to me last week, at which time I had a rather lengthy meeting

with Mr. McAlpine. By Mr. McAlpine's own admission, that particular

report must be thoroughly canvassed by me and my colleagues, and after

due deliberation the matter of distribution of that report will be made.

make it clear — I don't want to leave the impression with any members

opposite or my own colleagues that I'm sitting on something which

arrived in draft form only last week — it should be remembered that the

initiative to have this report prepared and to look at the deficiencies

of the Human Rights Code — which I might remind the House was a bill

introduced by the members opposite when they were government — takes

some time. I don't intend to be panicked and precipitate anything which

is really not relevant or helpful to those who we want to help at this

time.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary question to

the minister, Mr. Speaker. The minister used the expression "own

admission," giving rise to the suspicion that Mr. McAlpine submitted a

final report that the minister wishes to redraft. Can the minister

comment on the use of the words "own admission"?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Perhaps my use of the words "own admission" didn't accurately describe

what occurred. What Mr. McAlpine said was that the minister requesting

this report to be conducted is going to require some time to canvass

all the matters which are raised. I can assure you that under no

circumstances is there anything with respect to a redraft. This is a

serious matter. I have no intention whatsoever of being badgered with

those kinds of comments.

MR. LAUK: The opposition has no intention of badgering the minister about a completed report that's on his desk.

Mr.

McAlpine was here last week with a completed report and presented it to

the minister. The minister now informs us that he's not satisfied with

the way it's drafted, and he's going to circulate it among his

colleagues before it's released. If the minister did not feel that the

information that may or may not be obtained by such an inquiry into the

Ku Klux Klan is worthy of public scrutiny, why did he order the inquiry

in the first place?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I suspect that

the member opposite is reading from prepared notes, and some of his

questions are probably somewhat orchestrated right now.

The

fact of the matter is that the report came to me, and I advise the

House unequivocally that when it came in it was examined by me and by

my officials. There were also some

[ Page

5321 ]

things which the author, Mr. McAlpine, wanted to do. That is clear, and I can't be any truer than that.

MR. BARNES:

My question is to the Attorney-General. In light of the Ku Klux Klan

organizers advocating race war and threatening violence in British

Columbia, has the Attorney-General decided to investigate the Ku Klux

Klan under

section 281(1) and 281(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Investigations with respect to incidents within the purview of the

Criminal Code are done by the police forces in this province. As I have

advised this House on many previous occasions, throughout the length

and breadth of this province all detachments in the police forces and

members of the Crown counsel staff have been alerted to ensure that

investigations take place with regard to any incidents which may offend

against the Code in this particular respect.

MR. LAUK:

We thank the Attorney-General for that general reassurance that the

police forces are indeed acting in accordance with their historical job

description. However, in this case we see no investigation or

prosecution against KKK leaders who have recently advocated the

acquisition of arms and have predicted a race war in the province of

British Columbia. If the Attorney-General is aware of those statements

made by Ku Klux Klan leaders, has he asked whether the police have

fulfilled their historical duty and investigated under the Code?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The incident to which the hon. member refers is one of the matters

which are a continuing investigative responsibility of the police. The

answer to the member's question is certainly yes.

HOUSING CORPORATION OF B.C.

MR. NICOLSON:

I have a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Last

year the minister refused to reactivate the B.C. Housing Corporation,

saying that other programs would be sufficient to solve the housing

crisis in B.C., but during this year the crisis has worsened. As the

minister knows, demolitions and conversions of existing rental stock

are accelerated this year, and the average real estate listings have

doubled in the metropolitan area in one year. Has the minister now

decided to reactivate the Housing Corporation to assist in solving this

horrendous crisis?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I

guess the member doesn't read the press, because housing starts in

British Columbia in 1980 were 25 percent of all the starts in Canada.

Construction on 37,600 homes was started during 1980.

The

member talks about demolitions. I want him to know, in case he's not

aware, that that is a municipal responsibility and no responsibility of

my ministry.

He talks about reactivating the B.C. Housing Corporation. The answer is no,

and the reason the answer is no is because it was a disaster while it was in

place for a period of almost five years. It managed to produce about 1,300

units of housing, mostly through acquisitions, private developments, that were

made through the private sector. They didn't construct very many units.

I want to tell you that the housing initiative program, which was initiated

by this government last year, produced over 5,000 units of housing. Those are

the kinds of initiatives we should be looking forward to rather than to reactivate

the discredited B.C. Housing Corporation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? The introduction period is over.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I apologize to hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that I was not able to

introduce at the appropriate time this afternoon. I'd like to introduce

a group of students from la belle province as well as from the

constituency of Saanich and the Islands. We have an exchange group from

Quebec visiting with students of Stelly's Secondary School. The House

perhaps would make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 164: minister's office, $195,103.

MR. NICOLSON:

Just before the adjournment at 12 o'clock the minister indicated that

he would respond to the three areas I had raised. I would ask if the

minister is now prepared to respond to those questions.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The member inquired about the current practice of hiring in British

Columbia under the Public Service Commission which in the procedures

manual provides preference to Canadians who were resident in British

Columbia for one year prior to employment. He inquired about an

individual who had been out of the province for three and a half years,

and I presume was considered not eligible under those criteria.

want to inform him that the Public Service Commission is currently

looking at the guideline. I don't call it a regulation, because it's a

part of the procedures manual. I'll be quite happy to look at that

particular definition.

MRS. DAILLY: On the matter of

lotteries, I think the former speaker was trying, this morning, to

elicit from the minister some definitive answer on restructuring the

guidelines and perhaps accepting the fact of an advisory committee. I

think he knows why we're bringing this to his attention, although we're

pleased, as the last member who spoke said, that he has made some

positive changes in the handling of lotteries.

The biggest

area that we're all concerned about is that there is still an opening

for partisanship in the handing out of lottery funds. I think we'd be

happy if we could hear a more definitive statement on the restructuring

of the availability of grants to people. I hope he will reply further

on that.

[ Page 5322 ]

would like to ask a specific question of the minister right now

regarding the matter of handing out lottery licences. I wonder if he

would give us some idea of the guidelines that his ministry takes to

approve whether groups can have them. Specifically, there are two

rather high-profile groups that I know the minister is aware of who

have been refused their request from the Lottery Fund. One was the

Downtown Eastside Residents Association and the other was the

Greenpeace Foundation. I wonder if the minister could tell us why these

two apparently very worthwhile groups were refused a licence, and upon

what guidelines his ministry operates when they hand out lottery

licences.

HON. MR. WOLFE: With regard to the question

raised this morning and again now by the member on lotteries grants,

the guidelines for them, the policy and so on, there's been

considerable refinement of that, as she mentioned. Some months ago I

considerably extended the list of guideline requirements. There are

some 16 guidelines. This was distributed to all members of the House at

the time and is, incidentally, currently distributed with each

application for a lotteries grant which goes out.

I think

that what she's also referring to is the report of the ombudsman on

this matter, which really — if I might just answer it in this way —

comes down to two specific concerns which he had. One of them had to do

with a provision in the act for an advisory committee. The second was

the requirement to, let's say, formalize more the provision for

guidelines on lotteries grants. In his report, if I can recall, the

ombudsman went out of his way to indicate that there was no indication

of partisanship. But he raised these two primary concerns. I can only

say this: it was my view until now that we had satisfied these through

the new, extended guidelines long before that report was received. His

report has been received by executive council and is under

consideration. I cannot really go any further than that at this point.

You

mentioned the matter of the requirements for licensing of lottery

distributorships and so on. I can come back to you on that in a moment.

MRS. DAILLY:

I just hope that the minister himself can tell us that when he takes

part in the cabinet discussions on the recommendations of the ombudsman

and the other concerns that other citizens have expressed on the

allocation of lottery grants, he would agree to a restructuring, so

that we can have a non-partisan approach to the granting of lottery

funds. I think we would all feel better if the minister would tell us

that he's going to fight for that when the cabinet discusses it.

The

minister did say that we're all aware and have all received guidelines

for the handing out of lottery licences. I'm aware of those guidelines,

and that's why I am asking the question. I wonder if the minister can

tell the House specifically where the Greenpeace Foundation and

Downtown Eastside Residents Association did not meet the guidelines. I

went through the guidelines. I've checked some correspondence that came

to me on it. I fail to see why these groups did not receive licences.

That's all we're asking. We're only bringing it to the floor of the

House, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that most people do receive

their licences if they meet the guidelines. I went through their

presentations, and I can't see where they didn't meet the guidelines.

That's all we're asking. Could you answer that?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I could go back to an earlier question that the member raised having to

do with lotteries licensing. I think she referred in particular to

licensing for distributors and referred to the case of Greenpeace, for

instance. Greenpeace applied for a licence as a distributor of lottery

tickets. They are already licensed to do ticket lotteries in a retail

way and also to do bingos. In other words, they have considerable

revenues through those capacities now under our system. They were not

considered as eligible applicants under the application for a

distributorship. There are quite a large quantity of distributorships

across the province now. I forget the number — 260 across various

regions in the province. The basic requirement — I don't have the list

of their guidelines in front of me — is that they must be non-profit

organizations and must be able to report to the branch that they expend

a certain percentage of their funds on charitable objectives. If you

wouldn't mind, would you repeat the last question you asked?

MRS. DAILLY:

What you attempted to do there was to give me an answer as to why these

two particular groups were refused. I gather that with Greenpeace you

were saying it's because they already have at their disposal the means

for raising funds. That knocks any group out — if they already have

another means. I just want to get that straight, because as MLAs we all

get people writing to us and hoping we can assist them in the

guidelines. So I want to have it clear that if they have access to

other licensing — bingo games and so on — they don't get a lottery

licence. All I'm saying is that it must apply to all. I'm sure the

minister appreciates that. That is a fact? All right. Basically, then,

that applied to both of the questions that I had at this time on

lotteries.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I just want to make

a brief mention of lotteries as well, particularly since the member for

Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) raised the matter of licensing

organizations for the purpose of distributing or selling lottery

tickets on a wholesale basis. Frankly, I think that careful

consideration ought to be given to the types of organizations that are

granted these sorts of licences and the ways in which they spend the

proceeds from the sale. I noticed Greenpeace and Downtown Eastside

Residents Association were mentioned. I'm sure that both of these

organizations have various fund-raising drives and that much of the

money may go to very good causes. On the other hand, through you to the

minister, Mr. Chairman, it disturbs me a little bit that somehow our

guidelines are so broad as to allow political organizations to

wholesale the lottery tickets. In my own constituency we have the New

Democratic Party — as I understand they are possibly in one or two

other constituencies — wholesaling these tickets, and the purposes

given in their application for the distribution of the proceeds or

profits is to promote the cause of socialism. Frankly, I think it would

be much better if these moneys or the profits from this whole process,

which the people of British Columbia, regardless of political

philosophy, make possible, went to the Kinsmen, the Kiwanians, the

Rotary Club or the Lions, who are noted for their many good works.

They're not political, not in any way affiliated with any political

party, and the proceeds go for a good cause. To see the New Democratic

Party, the Social Credit Party, the Liberal Party or the Conservative

Party — it doesn't matter which, but it so happens the New Democrats

are in the business — compete with all these worthwhile organizations

and take the profits for the purpose of promoting socialism doesn't

seem right somehow.

[ Page 5323 ]

just don't believe this is right, and I would very much appreciate it

if the minister and his staff would make a note of this and investigate

this matter very carefully, because it's of concern to the people in my

constituency. It's of concern to all the people who look towards some

of the returns to carry forth their worthwhile projects. It's of

concern to the Lions, the Kiwanians and the Rotarians who must stand

next to the various sales outlets that are promoted by the NDP. I'm

sure they will appreciate me raising it in the House during the

minister's estimates, which is why I'm doing this, and I would perhaps

hope that my bringing it forth may possibly make the New Democratic

Party more aware as well that it's a hindrance to so many good causes

which I'm sure all members would agree are far more needed and

beneficial than to take profits provided through some public program

and simply put it to the promotion of socialism.

MRS. DAILLY:

I notice the minister is not answering specifically, and I just want to

make a point with a question to the minister relative to what's just

been said by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

Apparently he's showing us today that he has to do his little political

stint on the floor — his socialist-bashing — even when it comes to

lottery tickets, because he has no clout in cabinet. He's so desperate

he has to make this speech on the floor of the House. I'm sure his own

cabinet minister doesn't agree with him or this would have been changed

a long time ago. No other complaints have come, except from that

socialist-bashing minister. He's the only one who's raising these

complaints. I'm glad that the Provincial Secretary is far more

broad-minded and flexible and doesn't have that same terrible

bitterness towards those terrible socialists.

MR. DAVIS:

I'd like to ask the minister a question which relates to statistics.

Perhaps I might phrase it this way: why is it that the provincial

government doesn't regularly publish the numbers of employees in the

public service or make these numbers available to such sources as

Statistics Canada or the Canadian Tax Foundation? The principal reason

I wonder about it is that in recent years the record has been very good

as to the total numbers; it's simply that the numbers are so difficult

to come by. Canada-wide employment in the public service is now one out

of five. There are over two million public servants employed in this

nation out of 11 million total employees — men and women. The federal

ministries employ about 350,000, the provincial ministries from coast

to coast 450,000 and municipalities 400,000. There are some 300,000

teachers in the country and Crown corporations, and National Defence

employs another 600,000, for some 2.1 million. That's a large figure,

and it's a large figure in the context of 11 million.

think we have to be concerned about the size of the public service and

its growth, especially because it's growing, particularly at the

federal level, faster than the number of employed in the nation. I've

searched the statistics of Statistics Canada and I find that the

federal government reports regularly. In most cases all provinces

report except British Columbia, and usually the figure for B.C. is n.a.

— not available. I wonder about that.

The Canadian Tax

Foundation produces some very good statistics in considerable detail.

The British Columbia column is blank. They make an estimate, obviously,

to get a national total, but it's not reliable.

One other source, the Financial Post ,

occasionally produces figures. The only numbers they produce are

dues-paying union members in the public service in British Columbia.

The figure they had for 1978 was 34,000. The figure for 1980 was

46,000. I think perhaps that indicates that recruitment was up, rather

than the number of employees. That's not an accurate indication of the

number of employees in the B.C. public service.

I have a few

numbers which I've obtained directly from the ministry, as a result of

questions on the order paper. The number for March 31, 1976, was

39,139. The number for March 31, 1980 — four years later — was 39,350.

There was virtually no change over a four-year period. Still, as I

understand it, the only way I can get this number is to place a written

question on the order paper. Employment overall in the province in that

period was up more than 100,000. The public service, in other words,

remained relatively constant; employment in the province was up

substantially. In the last two years since 1979 it's up by nearly

another 100,000. So we have a dramatic increase in total employment and

little change in the public service employment. Going back to the NDP

years the figures are: December 31, 1971 — 29,000; December 31, 1975 —

40,000. Essentially the employment of the public service increased by

about one-third in the NDP years and has remained constant since then.

would like to have some assurance from the minister that B.C. will be

interested in reporting these statistics, at least on an annual basis,

and giving us breakdowns as to male and female employees, how many are

in executive capacities, how many are on a straight wage basis and so

on. Essentially my question is: hopefully when will we know these

statistics as a matter of publication by the government?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I want to thank the member for his question. The answer is yes. I would

ask that he provide me with the specific Statistics Canada report. I

cannot understand why the figures wouldn't have been included. Perhaps

they weren't available for that particular report. I'll certainly

investigate it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we've been

treated to a couple of very interesting statements. I'll deal with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs in a moment or two.

I would

like to deal with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

and an assertion that he made. He gave a figure for 1971 of 29,000 and

by 1975 it was 40,000. Let's do a little bit of analysis. I took over a

huge department in 1972, the Department of Health. What did I find in

that department? Employee after employee after employee with no

permanent status and they weren't counted. So the NDP gave them

permanent status. There were lots of people who had been working in the

Department of Health for 20 years without permanent status. That's

precisely what happened, and that was all through the entire public

service.

Another thing: if you want to know why there has

been very little increase in the number of employees from 1975 to 1979

— the figures the member was using — I would like that member to check

to find out how many of those one-time public servants were transferred

to Crown corporations. You have the entire ferry service who were

public servants. You have the whole Public Works department.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's on the order paper.

[ Page 5324 ]

MR. COCKE:

I know, but I don't like these assertions in the House that really

misrepresent facts. That's all that I have to say about that.

terms of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he knows that you have to

qualify to get a right to sell lottery tickets. You get that right

because you support a charitable organization. In Nanaimo, where they

have a fair amount, they have provided senior citizens' housing,

probably more so than this government in terms of percentage. Senior

citizens' housing, scholarships, bursaries.... If there's any argument

about it, why not tell the whole story? The whole story would be very

interesting.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I know the whole story.

MR. COCKE:

That minister, the most disappointing person here, always has to get up

and make his leadership speech, normally when the Premier isn't in the

House. That was disgraceful behaviour.

I'd like to discuss a

question which I think is of great import to your ministry. Presently

in Kamloops there is a by-election. You're in charge of the provincial

elections branch. When that by-election was called, the Premier assured

people that everything was in order. He'd been assured by the chief

electoral officer, or one of his deputies, that everything up there was

okay and ready to go for a by-election. The entire province is in a

disgraceful state in terms of the registration of voters; any member of

this House knows that. It's been 20 years since there has been a

purging of the list and a re-enumeration. Normally it should happen in

a static-list situation, which we have in this province, at least every

10 or 13 years — no longer than 13 years. The previous record was 13

years, I understand. Now we're going on 20 years without a proper

re-enumeration and a purging of the list.

Why didn't we do

it? You were government for some 30-odd years; we were government for

three years and seven months. We tried to do everything we possibly

could. We opened up registration. When that election in 1975 was going

on we opened up registration as it had never been opened up before. I

recall going to the office of the registrar of voters in 1975, and I

watched members from Coquitlam taking not 25 registration forms — I'm

talking about Socreds — but boxes of them to Coquitlam. I'm sure it

happened all over the province. We said: "Go ahead. Register the folks

who aren't registered." What are you doing now? You're lucky if you get

25 registration cards when you go to the registrar of voters.

Let

me give you a specific case. We have just finished canvassing a number

of polls. At one specific poll where every person was asked, "Are you a

registered voter?" — and we'd check to find out if they were on the

list — 60 percent of the people are disfranchised; 60 percent are not

registered to vote. That's predictable in Kamloops. Kamloops is a

burgeoning community. It's a relatively new community in terms of B.C.

and in terms of its size.

No government, no minister and no

department should be placed in a position where they have to put up

with that kind of situation. It's absolutely shocking, when you

consider that those members on the back bench somehow or other justify

that seven years ago there wasn't a re-registration. Incidentally, that

was the thirteenth year. Now we're into the twentieth year without a

registration — that is, a complete enumeration. They say: "Why didn't

you do it?" A government that's been in power on and off for some 27

years out of 29....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

That kind of slurping over there is very interesting, but the member

won't ever get up and give any kind of speech asking that the people in

his riding be registered. Obviously he doesn't care for democracy.

That's precisely what I am doing: asking that this kind of situation

come to a halt.

It's too late for Kamloops; those people are

already disfranchised. But wouldn't it be interesting if we've finally

learned our lesson, and before the next general election we have an

entire purging and an entirely new enumeration? It's about time. I

don't think there's any justification for our carrying on any longer.

There's more money in the vote; I would gather it's not enough to do

that. I'm positive that no member in this House would object to

sufficient money being placed into the vote to see to it that this is

done.

British Columbia suffers from the standpoint that the

population moves a great deal. Populations of areas like my town, New

Westminster, are relatively static, but many of the communities —

particularly the new communities — should be better served than they

are.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether or not the minister

would have anything to say with respect to the way our elections branch

has been backed up. I'd also like to know, in case there isn't going to

be another registration, if there will be registration cards provided

to anybody that wants them to go out and register people on their own,

in as great a number as is required. Presently you go to the

registrar's office, and they'll count out 25 cards to the NDP — I don't

know how many they count out to the Socreds — and before you can get

another single card, you've got to bring those 25 back completed.

That's the way it's run now. That means that one person can't go down

and pick up for a number; that means that each individual going out to

register voters has to go down himself or herself to pick up those

cards. It's just too tight; it's too stiff. If there is a proper

registration, we don't need to do that, but right now, Mr. Chairman,

there is not a proper registration.

One of the things that I

found during the last election was that many of the people who had been

enumerated federally felt they were on the provincial list, and then

when they got to the polls on election day they found out that they

were disfranchised. I think it's a valid question, and I think that we

had better do some thinking in this province about that very thing,

particularly in light of what we're finding in Kamloops. I'm sure the

other side is finding it too. It's ridiculous that people in a

democratic society should be so easily disfranchised.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the member raised the question, because I have

concerns too. With regard to Kamloops, he was questioning the

availability of blank registration cards to assist people in becoming

registered. He may not have heard, but I understand the chief electoral

officer provided 500 to each of the political parties involved within

the last ten days, I believe, so that they would each have access to a

greater number of these. There is some question about the act — whether

it's appropriate to be distributing quantities of registration cards.

I'm sure that's the question that concerns the chief electoral officer.

He has extended that number because of the urgency of the by-election

being called, and recently provided an additional 500 to assist people

in becoming registered.

[ Page 5325 ]

addition, with regard to Kamloops, he has done quite a considerable

amount of work previous to the election call and during the election

period, refining the list and purging it. He went into a

public-awareness program. As you know, it's very difficult. You can't

go out and pick people up by the scruff of the neck and take them in

and register them. You have to rely to quite a degree on their

voluntarily deciding to do this responsible action. He refined this

list to remove a lot of duplications and people no longer living there,

to the point where an updated file showed 34,000 names on the list. Due

to the public-awareness program, I'm advised, there has recently been

completed the addition of another 6,000 names to the list at that

point, so that the new list, when it is printed, will have

approximately 40,000 names. I'm not sure if that includes the

additional names that would have been self-registered during the safe

seven-day period after the writ is dropped, but they may provide for

some additional ones.

He has been promoting a considerable

public-awareness program, and during the coming year, starting this

April 1, will be advertising across the province, to the extent that

funds are available for it, to encourage people to walk into the local

office to become registered. During this past registration period there

have been 31 offices which were available throughout the province for

registration. We're looking forward to a more aggressive advertising

program.

I might say that the province of British Columbia

is the only province with a permanent voters' list as such. There's

quite a lot happening here. I think the important thing to consider is

that people don't lose their franchise, not so much that there are

duplications. It doesn't concern me personally that a person's name

might be on there two or three times, because there is very little

falsification involved in this. When a person walks in to vote, he

wants to have his name there so he is not disfranchised. What I'm

saying is that the important thing is to get eligible voters on the

voters' list.

MR. COCKE: To some extent I'm glad that

the minister is concerned. I don't think that his solution is going to

be the solution that we require. You see, Mr. Chairman, the problem is

that we have three areas where people are registered to vote. They're

registered municipally — automatically if they're municipal taxpayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you want one voters' list?

MR. COCKE:

Hear me through for a second. They're registered that way. Therefore

I'm registered. I feel secure. I'm on the list. When I hear the ad on

the radio or on television or see it in the paper.... I'm not

sophisticated; I'm Joe Public. We're all relatively sophisticated

politicians and know what's what about registration, because that's the

life-blood of politics. That is not the life-blood of people concerned

about looking after their families and doing other things.

Secondly,

federally we have another kind of voters' list. This is a brand new

voters' list created at each election. That's because there's an

entirely new enumeration done at that time.

Thirdly, we have

our B.C. voters' list, which is a permanent list. Once your name is on,

it's on forever, amen. I know lots and lots of dead folks who are on

that list. That's not to say that they're voting. I rather agree with

the minister. I think there's very little misbehaviour with respect to

that in this province.

If we can't do it better than an

advertising campaign, what I'm calling for is a brand new enumeration.

Purge the whole list and start from scratch. At least then we've got

everybody where they are now. In five years or ten years from now....

You can also continue on with your permanent list. I'm not all that

unhappy with a permanent list, because I know that the general

enumeration during each federal election is a very expensive

proposition and sometimes unmanageable.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry I'm boring that member from North Vancouver who really doesn't care much about fair play.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, I think it's extremely important that this particular branch

consider an entirely new enumeration of this province. If we don't

realize that we need it now, we sure should. As politicians, each and

every one of us has run into an awful lot of people who have been

disfranchised. I say that it's through no fault of their own. It's

because they're not sophisticated — pure and simple.

MR. LEGGATT:

I wanted to ask the minister some questions concerning B.C. Place. The

matter was raised this morning: the question of the roundhouse. Someone

at lunch said: "Take her to the roundhouse; you'll never corner her

there."

My question to the minister is simply this. I

understand that the present status is that a study is being done by

B.C. Place, under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Manning, with regard to

the disposition of that building. One of the municipalities that's a

component part of my constituency, Port Moody, has prepared a fairly

lengthy brief. They haven't had an opportunity to present the brief.

That particular municipality is most interested in obtaining the

roundhouse and the turntable. The key to the development is the

obtaining of the turntable. The purpose to which they would put it is a

railway museum in the historic city of Port Moody, which, as the

minister knows, was the original western terminus of the Canadian

Pacific Railway. Port Moody annually celebrates Golden Spike Days. The

whole theme of the city has always centred itself upon the railroad

industry and transportation. They have a fascinating proposal to

develop their museum, with other transportation experiments, around the

whole Transpo '86 proposition.

Can I give some assurance to

the city of Port Moody that there won't be a final decision with regard

to that disposition and that they will certainly have ample opportunity

to complete, prepare and present their brief not only to the minister

but to the committee of Transpo '86 so that their very interesting and

unique request will be given full and complete consideration? Could the

minister give me some assurance that no final decision has been taken

and that there will be an opportunity for the city of Port Moody to

present its brief to obtain the roundhouse and the turntable from the

present B.C. Place site?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In dealing

with this matter earlier today I was referring to a letter from Paul

Manning, vice president of corporate relations of B.C. Place, to Mayor

[ Page 5326 ]

Harcourt

of Vancouver. In it he also referred to the matter raised by the member

when he indicated that Alderman Alan Ball of Port Moody had expressed

interest in establishing a railway museum in that city. Alderman Ball

had asked whether it would be possible to dismantle parts of the

roundhouse for relocation at the Port Moody site, which is also of

considerable historical importance in British Columbia's railway

history. Should the necessary funding become available, and given the

possibility that the roundhouse will have to be rebuilt in any event,

this option might be further explored as one alternative course of

action.

I can only answer the member by saying that the

heritage branch of my ministry has not yet had any communication from

Port Moody in connection with our responsibility for heritage matters,

but we'd welcome it. I can assure you that there will be no decision —

at least from what I'm informed by B.C. Place — in disposing of this

matter at least before the end of the year.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like to thank the minister for his answer and ask that he, his

officials and the Transpo '86 committee look very carefully — and I

hope favourably — in the event that they make a decision that the

roundhouse is not appropriate to remain in the city of Vancouver. One

of our great weaknesses in our drive to reconstruct vast areas of

Vancouver is to lose sight of the many heritage places that have

already been destroyed. If one travelled simply to the city San

Francisco you could see a city with a tremendous appreciation of its

heritage. They have maintained buildings similar to those that are

being destroyed every day in Vancouver — wooden structures, etc. I

think it's certainly incumbent on us to have some appreciation for the

tremendous railroad heritage of the city of Vancouver and its

surrounding areas.

I also represent a community called the

city of Port Coquitlam, which has the other major roundhouse on the

west coast. The roundhouse and the turntable, I understand, are no

longer required because the diesel train doesn't use them. They were

originally constructed for steam trains. We would hope that both of

those turntables could be converted into railroad museums. I don't

think there is a more appropriate place to locate them than in the city

of Port Moody. Therefore I appreciate the minister's answer.

did want to comment on a couple of other things that have come up. I'm

sorry to see that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) has left. Oh, here he is. I'm glad to see that he's back. He was

expressing great concern that political organizations were allowed to

market lottery tickets. One of the avowed purposes of those political

organizations was apparently the promotion of socialism, which he no

doubt sees as a terrible evil. I wanted to ask the minister if given

that principle he would therefore object to chambers of commerce

selling those lottery tickets on the grounds that within their charter

is the promotion of the free enterprise system. In fact a good number

of these organizations take an oath of their membership in terms of

both junior and senior chambers of commerce. I wouldn't want to be

small-minded enough to cut them off, but apparently the Minister of

Municipal Affairs would like to chop off the chambers of commerce and

everybody else who has a political point of view. That's the only

logical conclusion one can take from his remarks.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

Not them. Oh, it's just the NDP people he wants to cut off. I see.

You've got to have a little more objectivity, Mr. Minister. You can see

that it's a maturing province.

I also wanted to comment

briefly on the question of the voters' list and the idea of a single

list. I couldn't agree more that the public believe they are voters.

When they're on a municipal list they're not sophisticated. That's not

their everyday bread and butter as it is ours. They think they're on a

voters' list, and we're continually disfranchising people. It seems to

me so logical that the federal and provincial authorities could get

together and develop a single list in cooperation with the

municipalities. There's a tremendous waste of bureaucracy that goes on.

The re-numeration at every federal election is a whole different

structure. It seems to me we could easily set up a single registrar of

voters, a single organization which does the job of putting everybody

who's qualified on the list, and it's simple to have the single name

and check whether they're qualified or not, provincially, federally and

municipally. I would hate to speak of federal-provincial conferences,

which have been producing such absolutely negative results in the past

two or three years, but this is one conference that I think could

produce some results for the people of Canada and perhaps a substantial

tax saving.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a couple of items

regarding changes in election practices that I'd like to bring forward

for the minister's attention. I can't help thinking that it's really

unfortunate we have to go into these nitty-gritty details on our

concern for changes and for specific changes here when, really, a

responsible government would set up a committee where all the members

of the House — who could be ones that are selected — could sit down and

work with the Provincial Secretary in bringing forward their ideas for

proper and beneficial election changes. I just hope that one day the

Social Credit government will take a step forward and follow the NDP

practice, which was to involve members of the House in committees.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY:

Yes. How many people in Kamloops are not on the voters' list, for

example? Why do we have to stand up here and try to elicit this kind of

thing on the floor of the House? Perhaps you can tell us how many are

not on the voters' list, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak to

the minister about a couple of other items. One is that, fortunately,

some of the requirements of our present Election Act are fairly

progressive, but we have a few areas that we need changed. In the last

Quebec election, I noted a couple of things I would like to bring to

the minister's consideration for a reaction. One is the whole matter —

this has been brought up before — of the necessity of having our voters

mark their ballots with an X. As you know, nothing but an X will do,

and hundreds of ballots are spoiled in provincial elections in this

province every time we have an election, because people forget they

must mark with an X. When you think back on it, why is that necessary?

Quebec has removed it. In Quebec, their ballots can be marked with an

X, a tick, or a line through the circle opposite a candidate's name.

The former argument was that the X was needed to ensure anonymity. I

don't think this is any longer valid. Perhaps the minister could react

to this. Although, may I say again, I always find this is not the way

one should have to deal with

[ Page

5327 ]

estimates, but this is the only opportunity I have. I'd rather do it in a committee.

One

other thing I'd like to bring up is the matter of the handicapped,

seeing this is the year of the handicapped. It shouldn't matter if it's

the year or not. I think it's something all governments should have

looked at with more care in the past. In Manitoba — and it's the only

province in Canada — they have legislation which establishes a postal

vote system. Apparently it's quite successful. Instead of boring the

whole House by going into all the details on how this operates in

Manitoba, I'd refer the minister to the report of the Special Committee

on the Disabled and the Handicapped that came through the House of

Commons in February 1981, in which they praise the Manitoba government

for bringing this in. It's pretty detailed, so I won't go through the

details on how it operates, but I would appreciate it if the minister

would look into this. As we know, many disabled people sometimes simply

cannot manage to get out to vote, and apparently this has worked. Maybe

the minister would look into it.

One other point I'd like to

bring up; I'm sure the Provincial Secretary would particularly

appreciate this, because he and I both entered our first provincial

election in 1966, and I'm sure he, perhaps, feels as I do that those

election campaigns are somewhat unnecessarily long. Perhaps you agree

with me; perhaps you don't. For his information, election campaigns in

Quebec now may not be shorter than 28 days nor longer than 35 days. Of

course, in B.C. we just have a minimum of 38 days; the maximum isn't

even specified. I'm wondering if the minister could give his reaction

to my input to him today on some changes. And perhaps some day we will

find a committee to discuss election changes.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I want to thank the member for her suggestions. I think she has

undertaken to send me information on the Manitoba system. We probably

have that, but I appreciate receiving it.

I might say that

two or three of the points she raised are embodied in our act and would

require amendments. In fact, the most important one would have to do

with registration. In other words, an enumeration in the way it's done

by the federal government is not now possible under the act. We would

be doing a re-registration of everyone.

With regard to the

38-day period required for the election, many people would like to see

this abbreviated. The main reason for it being as long as it is, of

course, is the period required to update the registration list to the

extent possible — seven days after the writ is drawn up. There wouldn't

be any other deterrent to abbreviating the period.

MR. KING: I have three or four different items to deal with. I just

wanted to say, with respect to the issue under discussion for the past half

hour, that it is highly confusing to the public in the province of B.C., in

terms of the federal voters' list, the municipal voters' list and, of

course, the provincial. Both the municipal and the federal list are far more

permissive than the provincial voters' list. At the municipal level you

can go in on election day and register and cast your ballot. Federally, in rural

areas you can be sworn in on voting day, and your franchise will be maintained.

Provincially there is no such system for swearing in, except

section 80 of the

Election Act, which is nothing more than a pacifier, because those votes are

not counted unless the person's name is found to have been wrongly removed

from the voters' list. With those kinds of differences in the various voting

procedures, it's little wonder that the people of the province of British

Columbia are highly confused as to precisely what the procedure is and what

their rights are in the various elections that come along.

certainly subscribe to the suggestion put forward by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam that there be some kind of dialogue with,

perhaps, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the federal government to

come up with a simplified standard procedure for getting on the voters'

list, so that anyone who legally meets all the criteria for entitlement

is not deprived of his vote on election day. That should be the

objective. Certainly if his word can be taken with a statutory

declaration at the federal level, I see absolutely no reason why the

security and interests of the provincial government should be

considered a higher factor than that of our national elections, and a

different standard applied.

The other thing is that the

minister said that 500 registration cards were given out to the

political parties in Kamloops. Well, hooray! But the problem is that by

that time, you've got seven days left to do the registration, which is

a very compacted time in which to contact the people who think they're

on the voters' list but it happens to be the municipal or federal list

which they're on, rather than the provincial list. It's true, it takes

a massive army of volunteers, in addition to a vigorous enumeration, to

catch them all. Our point is that you can remove some of the roadblocks

which are there now. That's what I think the government should be

addressing itself to.

I've got some other important matters

which I want to raise. I'm a vain person and a bit egotistical, and for

that reason I like having a bit of an audience in the House. I would

like to see some of the government members come back, so that the

thoughts and representations I have on behalf of the good people of

Shuswap-Revelstoke will be heard by all the government, not just a

select number of backbenchers and two ministers of the Crown who are

nearly falling off the edge of the benches anyway. Accordingly, I move

that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following motion:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

Mr. King requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 5328 ]

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I briefly want to raise this matter of safety with the

Provincial Secretary again. His ministry has something to do with the

safety within the public service. The safety awards are given out to

the ministry having the best record of accident prevention and a

minimum of lost-time injuries in the public service. I want to draw to

the minister's attention the fact that a rather historic event took

place in September of last year, that being a fine by the Workers'

Compensation Board levied against the Ministry of Forests for abridging

the safety standards set by the Workers' Compensation Board in the

province of British Columbia.

I think that's a bit of a

scandal and a shocker when one branch of government is found guilty of

failing to abide by the standards which are generally set by that

agency for adherence by all of the private sector as well as the

government branches themselves. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, if that

conviction and that fine have anything to do with the reason the

Provincial Secretary cancelled the safety awards that were to be held

this year. And I want to know whether or not the Provincial Secretary

has taken any action to ensure that not only the Ministry of Forests

but all branches of the provincial government will live up to the

minimum standards set by the Workers' Compensation Board of the

province — and applied to the private sector — so that at least we'll

be consistent. The standards set by the board will have more

credibility with the private sector when they know that the government,

which basically sets the standards, is prepared to live with and

respect those standards. I raise that in passing with the Provincial

Secretary, and I would appreciate his comments on it.

The

other area I wanted to deal with, Mr. Chairman, relates to the opening

comments made by the Provincial Secretary when he introduced his

estimates and talked about the great job that is being done for the

libraries in British Columbia. I think he read a letter that he had

received from some member of the library board in the Thompson-Nicola

Regional District area congratulating the ministry on a good job with

respect to their support for libraries. I find it rather ironic that

the Provincial Secretary should raise that letter and suggest that a

good job is being done with respect to library funding in that area,

because I have here in a file literally dozens of letters, all

complaining about the decline in funding for libraries in that area.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could just read a few of them to indicate to

the Provincial Secretary the kind of problem that has arisen.

This

is a letter from Kathy Wyse of Kamloops. The Provincial Secretary

answered her letter. Also from Kamloops are a letter from a Mrs. L.

Beachkowski and one from a Mr. Leslie Powell.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What date is on those?

MR. KING: The minister's reply to the Beachkowski one was November

5, 1980, and the Kathy Wyse one was November 5, 1980. I'll get to some more

of them here in just a second. Here's a letter to the Hon. Evan Wolfe

dated October 30, 1980, and signed by Edith E. Broadfoot of Chase. This is just

a sample of the letters. I'm not going to read each and every one of them,

but I'll read the minister a sample. This is directed to the minister:

"This

is to advise you of my objection to the announcement by the

Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System that serious reductions in

library service will take place over the next several months. In this

area we voted for a library system for which the provincial government

would pay approximately 50 percent of the operating budget. It is vital

that you seriously reconsider reinstating adequate annual grants for

this cause."

There's a submission from D.F. Broadfoot,

presumably of the same family, one from Mrs. Joan Johnston from

Kamloops and one from Mrs. B. Campbell of Chase, all along the same

line.

Mr. Chairman, there was a submission from the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library

System itself and a news release issued by that board, saying:

"The

board of management of the library system announced the details of step

one in the planned reduction of library services today. These

reductions have been made necessary because of reduced provincial

government funding. The Valleyview library will be closed at 5 p.m.

November I after six years of serving residents of the central and

eastern areas of Kamloops. It is one of the casualties of reduced

provincial government financing for the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library

System.

"The board chairman, Roger Behn, in

regretfully announcing the closure, indicated this is like a nail in

the coffin — the death of a plan designed to show what libraries could

be in smaller centres. The plan, conceived by the W.A.C. Bennett

government in 1971 and developed by the NDP government was to bring

'metropolitan centre' level library service to the interior. 'The

government of B.C., whose total grants to public libraries are the

lowest per capita of any province in Canada, is responsible for this

library's demise.' said Behn.

" 'This library

system,' added Behn, 'is in real difficulty in 1981. However, the other

three regional library systems will be in a similar position in 1982.

The only solution is for the residents of this province to let their

MLAs and the Premier know directly that libraries must get reasonable

provincial funding.'

"Valleyview and

Dallas-Barnhart Vale residents are urged to use the Kamloops library,

236 St. Paul Street or the North Kamloops library. Books can be turned

into the Valleyview library book slot until December 1.

"The

closure follows decisions made at the board meeting of September 27

when a plan was developed to reduce anticipated 1981 costs because of

the reduced government funding. Further steps include reducing open

hours of the two other Kamloops libraries, as well as the Quesnel,

Williams Lake and Merritt libraries, to four days per week. Film

service will be cut out October 31 — another casualty of the

reductions. As drastic is the reduction of open hours of smaller

libraries by 35 to 50 percent effective January 1.

"'January 1, 1981, will be a black day for libraries

in the interior,' stated Behn. 'It is hoped that each library user

will make this known to his or her MLA. The government can do something about

saving your library service.'"

HON. MR. WOLFE: What's the date on that again?

[ Page

5329 ]

MR. KING: This is October 15, 1980. It's under the letterhead

of the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System, 906 Laval Crescent,

Kamloops, B.C., V2C 5P5. I consider that it's a bona fide letter from

the library board in that area. I think they're expressing their

concern in sincere and honest terms. I've indicated to the minister the

number of letters that I receive from private citizens all through that

general area complaining about these major cutbacks in the library.

For

the minister to get up and introduce his estimates with a letter of

congratulations from someone in this area is an enigma, to say the

least. I don't know who that was. Whether that person the minister

quoted was the Social Credit appointment to the library board I don't

know; maybe it was. But it certainly doesn't reflect the broad view

coming to me from that library board and the public in that area. I

would suggest to the Provincial Secretary that he knows, as do all

people in the province right now, to the continuing embarrassment of

Social Credit, that one of the library facilities that had to close in

north Kamloops is now occupied by the Social Credit Party as a

committee campaign room for the provincial by-election.

the minister telling us that all those people and all the evidence of

empty facilities taken over by the government themselves for a

political campaign are all wrong? Is he telling us to believe that in

spite of these closures and cutbacks in hours of service in that

important interior area, that funding is just jake-a-loo and

everything's okay? The people of the area don't believe it, and I'm

responding to the letters and requests that I receive to drive this

message home to the Provincial Secretary as forcefully as I possibly

can by saying: "Look, the people of the interior are entitled to a fair

standard of library facility in the same way that metropolitan areas

throughout the province are." I think members on all sides of the House

who represent interior communities, be it in the north, central or

southern interior, have to support the need for what should be

fundamental services in today's society, unless the government is

satisfied with some other scenario where good reading, good opportunity

for exposure to good reading material and good literary opportunity are

denied to the people of the province. I don't think that's the

government's real intention. I think it's a matter of priorities in

spending.

I'm upset about this matter, and I would very much

like to hear what the Provincial Secretary intends to do to restore a

level of library facilities and funding which recognizes inflation and

allows for the preservation of those library facilities on at least a

five-day-a-week basis and provides them with an adequate operating

budget under the formula.

One of the reasons that people

from the interior get a bit angry.... This government is very fond of

kicking the federal government in Ottawa around. They say: "Hey, we're

alienated out here in the west." They go around kicking the slats out

of Ottawa, and particularly the Prime Minister, and they say: If you

don't start recognizing us and treating us better, we're going to take

some drastic action." I don't think they've gone quite so far as to say

we're going to separate or anything like that, but they're constantly

talking about the riches really being in the west and how we're

alienated because the bulk of the political weight resides in Quebec

and Ontario.

I want to tell the Provincial Secretary

that he has that same kind of problem right here in the province of

British Columbia. There are many people in the north and the interior

who take the view that the resource wealth, the power resources for

electrical and hydro power generation, is up in the interior, and to a

large extent the environment has been alienated and despoiled to

provide power for the industrial and residential complexes on the lower

mainland and Vancouver Island. They say: "What do we get back for it?"

I don't think most people in the province of British Columbia are so

narrow in their view that they object to the sharing of the wealth from

resources across the length and breadth of the province, but we do get

a little bit tired of providing the resource wealth to the central core

of the population where the political power is, which is Vancouver and

the lower mainland, to the exclusion and detriment of the rural areas

of the province of British Columbia. We ask ourselves why there should

be a Pier B-C, a Transpo '86, rapid transit and a tunnel to Vancouver

Island to accommodate the fertile mind of the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications(Hon. Mr. McGeer), when we in the interior can't even enjoy basic library services.

It's

not just library services; we're losing health services that are

important. I know it's not your jurisdiction, but we in Revelstoke have

just lost our home-care program.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

Nonsense! What an asinine comment from my friend from Omineca. I work

in an open way in debate in this Legislature, which we were elected to

do. If the member who sits in his seat and snipes away, with incessant

banalities, would get on his feet and speak for his area, he'd be more

productive too.

In all good conscience and in all sincerity,

I'm suggesting to the Provincial Secretary that we feel a little bit

cheated. I'm certainly interested in listening to his side of it. Maybe

he has done something since the time these letters poured in. I know

that whatever has happened, he hasn't solved all of the problem. We

have some vacant libraries up there; some are closed down and some are

not operating full-time. I would like to receive some kind of

commitment from the minister that he is concerned about this type of

input which I've received from all over that area. He must have

received it too. In fact, many of these letters are copies of letters

directed to the minister. I would like some indication from him that

he's sensitive to this problem, that he's prepared to assign a higher

priority to it, and that he's prepared to make the necessary financial

allocation to bring it back up to the standards it enjoyed between 1972

and 1979. I'd appreciate the minister's answer to that question.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I thank the member for raising the question on libraries, which we

haven't dealt with until this point in time. At the outset, I have to

say that I think his comments with regard to the problems of the

Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola district are, to be fair, somewhat out of date.

He referred to a number of letters he has, which I'm sure I have as

well, and a considerable campaign which went on last fall, having to do

with their particular problem. In this coming year's estimates we've

made a substantial increase in the funds available for libraries across

the province — a 45 percent increase in the grants to libraries, or an

increase of some $2 million across the province. In addition, to

specifically address wide-ranging districts which have lower

populations, we have introduced a new feature support for librar-

[ Page 5330 ]

ies;

that is, a grant of $8 per square mile is added to the per capita

grant. Last year the grant was $1.46 per capita; in this coming year it

will amount to $2.93 per capita. Basically it is what we have always

called a book grant. In addition, of course, there will be the $8 per

square mile.

Regarding Cariboo-Thompson in particular, we're

all aware that this specific district has had a special financing

formula associated with it. It was perhaps based on 50 percent sharing

of the cost to libraries. You might say it was somewhat of an

experiment — there was a referendum. We've had a number of meetings and

discussions with the people up there and with the regional district. A

committee was formed, which met with me, and we arrived at what I think

is a very satisfactory solution. Negotiations took place, the result of

which was that we agreed to provide that area with a special one-time

grant to retire debt, to make it easier for them in terms of their

operating obligations in the future — a one-time grant of $450,000 this

year. In addition, we were providing a continuing grant of $723,889 for

the year 1981-82. I believe that the total of the two grants, the

one-time grant and the particular operating grant this year, would

amount to something over $1.1 million or $1.2 million.

could go on at considerable length regarding the Cariboo-Thompson and

their problems, but I can say that due to the prolonged meetings which

took place and to the efforts of the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland), who met with the people up there on different occasions, I

think we arrived at a very satisfactory conclusion. There were concerns

that the level of funding provided in recent years, which they agreed

to reduce, would impact on the enrichment that had been made in their

library system.

Mr. Member, I have a file of letters too,

which are really more current, that I'd like to make available to the

House. I won't read at length from them, but I'd like to have you see

them. One is from the chairman of the board of the

Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System, dated April 24, 1981. It says:

"Also, this library board wishes to thank you and your colleagues in

cabinet for implementing our new funding formula for public libraries.

Congratulations are due to the government of British Columbia for their

commitment to public library service."

Then a letter from

the B.C. Library Trustees Association dated April 8 says: "Library

trustees across this province appreciate this action by the provincial

government in making continued good library service available. Please

convey the appreciation of the association to the cabinet." It's signed

by Mrs. Nora Stocks, president of the B.C. Library Trustees Association.

There is also a letter from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, dated March

23. I'm quoting, in part, a letter signed by their administrator, Eric Shishido.

He states: "May we offer our thanks to you and your staff during the negotiations

resulting in the favourable resolution of the one-time grant to the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola

Library System." I quoted, during my earlier remarks at the beginning of

these estimates, from a congratulatory letter from Mr. Ray Woods, chairman of

the Library Advisory Council, which is dated April 3. A letter from the Cariboo

Regional District, dated April 3, says:

"We passed a resolution that the letter dated March 12 from

the Hon. Evan Wolfe and the news release dated March 10 from the Ministry of

Provincial Secretary and Government Services regarding the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola

Library System be received, and that a copy of resolution No. 813130, concerning

the use of the $450,000 special grant, be forwarded to the hon. minister. In

addition, a letter will be sent to the Hon. Evan Wolfe indicating the Cariboo

Regional District board's sincere appreciation for the minister's efforts

on behalf of the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System."

There

are further letters from Miss Dolly Kennedy of the Library Trustees

Association of British Columbia and Mrs. M.G. Williams, chairman of the

East Kootenay Library Society.

These are official bodies

representing the library fraternity and regional districts associated

with that particular problem. We have directed a lot of energy towards

trying to resolve it, because it was a special area that had a very

special financial situation in the past. I think it's reasonable to say

that the people who are really involved in the matter up there are, to

the best of my knowledge, reasonably satisfied with the solution which

we've arrived at. We've certainly gone out of our way. I want to thank

Treasury Board for making funds available this year to try to upgrade

the support we are giving to libraries in the province.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I would like to ask leave to table these documents at a later point.

MR. KING:

I thank the minister for his reply. If indeed the issue is resolved to

the satisfaction of the local area, then I'm more than pleased. I would

point out, however, that, as the minister commented in his reply — I

think it was quoted in one of the letters: "A favourable resolution has

been found...." You know, it's fine to get congratulatory letters, Mr.

Minister, but when the government's cut in the grant support for that

library system created the initial problem, it's a bit much to accept

too many plaudits for resolving it afterwards. You created the dilemma.

You created the problem. Then you come along and say: "Okay, after

meetings with the people in the area" — which should have taken place

before the cuts were announced and before the budget was set so they

could plan too, in terms of what kind of support they were getting from

the provincial government.... It would have been far better to consult

at that time rather than after the fact.

I knew about the

meeting up there, attended I believe by the departed member for

Kamloops, who at that time was Minister of Health, the Provincial

Secretary, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). If the government wanted to be

fairly broad-minded in their approach and quest for input into the

development and maintenance of that library system, they might have

invited the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke too. My area, where the citizens

have just as many rights as anywhere else — simply because they're not

represented by a Socred — had an interest in and a reliance on that

same library system. The government shouldn't be timid about including

any MLA, government or opposition, who's party to a problem like this.

Why do you have to be so narrow that just the cabinet ministers from

around the area closet themselves together, and an MLA who represents

an important part of that library district and who's very directly

affected by the cutbacks is not even consulted and is not invited to

the meeting for his input and suggestions about what might be done?

It's like small-time politics, and I think that's a bit regrettable. In

any event, I do thank the Provincial Secretary for his response and I

take him at his word. Certainly I will be

[ Page

5331 ]

contact again with members of the area boards and some of the people

who have written to me to ascertain that, indeed, they are satisfied

with the support the library system is receiving now.

There

is one other area that I wanted to deal with. Perhaps I should mention,

first of all, that I congratulate the Provincial Secretary for choosing

Revelstoke as the site of the 1983 Winter Games. Once again I say to

him that it just might have been nice, you know, had the Provincial

Secretary recognized the MLA for the riding in making the announcement.

It's not a big thing. I think it's kind of chintzy, though — don't you?

— when, because a man sits in opposition, you fail to respect and

recognize the fact that he is the representative in the Legislature for

that district and you make the announcement without ever notifying the

local MLA. I heard about it through a representative for the city of

Revelstoke the day the Provincial Secretary was flying up to Revelstoke

in a government jet to meet with city council and make the announcement

that Revelstoke was the successful applicant. He never got there

because it was clouded in — too bad. I would very much liked to have

seen the Provincial Secretary get there — and we would always welcome

him there. But it's just that kind of little — I refer to it as a

chintzy — thing that I don't think does the government any good

politically. You know, it's just a matter of recognition; it's a matter

of courtesy.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We've had your members at other announcements.

MR. KING:

I can't hear what the minister is saying. But that happens frequently,

and this government has a definite policy of excluding opposition

members from announcements such as that, and of inviting their own

government members from other areas, even to intrude into an opposition

member's riding, to make announcements and so on. It's all right to

bring them in — they're all welcome — but you might do the courtesy of

recognizing the democratic will of the people, who have chosen their

own representative, and at least include him in notification. It's a

small point.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LORIMER:

I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming a group of students

from Marlborough-Royal Oak Secondary School in Burnaby. Along with them

are some 50 exchange students from the province of Quebec.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I just wanted to indicate that I have

no resistance to the suggestion that opposition members be invited.

These occasions arise very quickly. But I wanted to indicate to him

that in the case of the Trail announcement your member was invited and

your member appeared there.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for that and perhaps.... What was

that the Smothers brothers used to say? "Mother liked that brother better

than me." No, as I say, it's not a great big thing; but I think it

would be a matter of common courtesy and it might make relationships a bit more

civil if those kinds of basic courtesies were observed.

Finally

on that point, I am prepared to work along with the minister and his

staff and the representatives of the Revelstoke area in any way that I

possibly can, in terms of the planning and arrangements, to make sure

that the 1983 Winter Games are indeed a resounding success. If there

are any suggestions that the minister or his staff have that would be

helpful, I would be very pleased to receive them — and certainly that's

reciprocal.

The other point that I wanted to raise, Mr.

Chairman, is a point on behalf of the recreation and fitness branch

field representatives. I am concerned that these people, who provide a

very valuable service in the field throughout the province of British

Columbia, are very short-staffed. I have some information that I've

received from the association that they belong to, I believe, and from

various organizations around the province who work through the field

representatives in delivering recreation and various cultural and

fitness opportunities to the municipalities. I think there are some

rather shocking revelations regarding the staff, in population and the

geography that these individuals have to serve, comparing that with

other areas of the nation. I'd just like to indicate to the minister

some of the things that I found rather shocking and ask him whether or

not he was aware of these problems and whether he intends to do

anything to bolster this very necessary service to the urban areas of

the province.

I have a resolution passed by the British Columbia Recreation Association. Perhaps I should just read it:

"Whereas in 1980 there were 375 recreation commissions and

recreation departments in the province, therefore

be it resolved that the British

Columbia Recreation Association submit a proposal to the provincial government

to substantially increase the number of field staff representatives working

throughout the province so that committees and groups may take better advantage

of provincial programs and expertise. We wish you to be well informed about

the above concern and to this end have prepared the enclosed information."

There's

a table showing recreation and fitness branch field representatives,

their location and the area they serve, a table illustrating the

regional districts of the province served by the recreation and fitness

representatives and a table comparing the number of professional field

staff working in the territories and provinces of Canada.

There's

some very revealing data here, Mr. Chairman, that I think the House

should be aware of. This table shows the areas that the field staff

representatives of the recreation and fitness branch serve, their

office location, number of commissions, number of regional districts,

the population and square kilometres in each area.

There's

one field rep in Victoria. The number of recreation commissions that he

has to deal with and serve are 12. The approximate number of regional

districts is one with a population of 229,000, a percentage total of

9.29 and an area of 2,427 square miles.

Vancouver Island and

Nanaimo have one. It serves 67 recreation commissions, has six regional

districts, a population of 224,000 and an area of over 58,000 square

miles.

Vancouver has one representative for 12 recreation

commissions, one regional district, a population of 1,000,083 — one

recreation and fitness person representing that kind of population —

and an area of 2,602 square miles. It's not that large.

[ Page 5332 ]

Fraser

Valley has one. The office location in Abbotsford serves 28 recreation

commissions, four and a half regional districts and a population of

212,000.

The central interior has one field rep at Kamloops

representing 49 recreation commissions, slightly more than two regional

districts, a population of 157,000 and an area of 167,761 square miles.

How is one person supposed to provide any kind of cohesive fitness and

recreation program serving that large a rural area with that population

and square mileage?

Similkameen-Okanagan-Boundary has one

representative serving 46 recreation commissions, four regional

districts, a population of 199,395 and an area of 30,000 square miles.

For

the East and West Kootenays there is one representative serving 69

recreation commissions, two regional districts and a population of

95,000.

Then there are two more in central British Columbia

up at Prince George serving 92 recreation commissions, a population of

232,000 and an area of 608,000 square miles.

Obviously these

people can't do an adequate job. It's my understanding that the number

of fitness and recreation directors has remained constant. I think

there are nine of them in the province, and it's been nine for

something like the last ten years. That's a bit of a sham. We can't

deliver the program the provincial government is talking about in an

effective way when people are spread that thin. There are heavy demands

on these people, and by and large they're doing a good job throughout

the rural areas of the province — and certainly, I believe, in the

metropolitan areas too.

I'm not going to go through all the

data, but some of it is very pertinent to think about, look at and

contrast against the kind of support other provinces are providing.

Here's a table that compares the populations of the ten provinces and

two territories, the number of recreation and field offices, the number

of professional recreational field staff and the population per

recreation field staff person.

In the Yukon the average

population is pretty near 22,000; the field staff is two; the average

population the field staff serves is 10,000. In the Northwest

Territories the total population is 42,000. They've got four recreation

offices and a staff of four field people, and they serve an average of

just over 10,000 people. New Brunswick, in the Maritimes, has a

population of 677,000. They have 13 offices and a staff of 29 to

provide these services throughout New Brunswick. We in the province of

British Columbia have nine. Isn't that a shame? There's something

seriously wrong here if we're serious about those very important

community services we're trying to deliver. In New Brunswick the staff

of 29 serve an average population of 23,000. Saskatchewan has 18

offices and 18 staff; Newfoundland has 10 offices and ten staff — more

staff than British Columbia. Alberta has 18 offices and 26 field staff;

Manitoba has 14 staff; Quebec has 62 staff; Ontario has 73 staff, and

so on it goes. I think the only area with a lower staff than British

Columbia is Nova Scotia with six.

I'm not suggesting we go

out and hire a whole flock of new people, but I am suggesting the field

staff you have now is really overburdened to the point where it can't

cover all the demands being placed on it — the legitimate demands in

terms of the criteria and qualification. They're run to a frazzle; it's

unfair and they're rather desperate. As a consequence our communities

suffer. We fail to have the programs we might have for senior citizens'

groups and young people, and for a broader opportunity for fitness and

recreation, which is in everyone's best interest in the province of

British Columbia.

This has a relationship to health care,

because if people are active, involved and in a better physical

condition, then the calls upon our medicare system are reduced

commensurately. So you save; it's not a loss. There's a payback in

ensuring these people are given the wherewithal to mount good programs,

to have the minimum staff requirements they need and to be given some

support by the legislators here to recognize that a better recreational

opportunity and better physical fitness are related to one's health,

one's psychological outlook and a whole variety of other social

interactions that can be traced. There is a payback in many ways. I

suggest to the Provincial Secretary that it's false economy not to

invest a more reasonable amount in this very important area. I make

that plea to him as strongly as I possibly can.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I thank the member for bringing this to my attention. I had received

the letter referred to and have replied to it. There are now some 50

staff in the recreational and sports branch, including the eight or

nine field representatives referred to. I recognize the concern here.

It should be pointed out, though, that in addition we are providing

considerable grants to provide field representatives at the local

level. For staff hiring there are incentive grants for local

recreational commissions. A number of these grants are going out now

which assist in the hiring of local recreational representatives. We

have also increased the number of sports coordinators across the

province from 6 to 12 in this coming year. It isn't all strictly

restricted to the one field representative. I'll certainly look at the

areas he's talking about, because I think your main thrust concerned

the widespread areas represented by only one person.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, I don't very often agree with the member for Revelstoke-

Shuswap (Mr. King), because we have very strong political,

philosophical differences, but I must agree with some of what he said

this afternoon in regard to the interior communities of this province

being short-changed in many service areas. I must disagree with him, of

course, in respect to my constituency of Omineca, when he says that

they're being short-changed in health services. That is not so, Mr.

Member. We have new health centres now built at Fraser Lake and

Granisle, and we have a new one in the planning stages for Houston. I

think the delivery of health services in my constituency is very good.

[Mr. Lauk in the chair.]

That's

not what I wanted to talk about this afternoon. I'd like to take some

time of committee to speak about the guidelines under which the lottery

fund is governed in this province and the inequity of those guidelines,

as I see it — relating to the small interior and northern communities

of this province. I don't, however, agree with the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — he isn't in his seat at this time — who

spoke this morning about the equalization of the distribution system of

lottery grants. I don't agree that they should be done on a basis of

riding population. As a rural and northern member, I see far too often

that the wealth of this province, which primarily originates in the

interior and the northern two-thirds of our province, is primarily

spent in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island. Not as much of it

[ Page

5333 ]

returned as it could be whence it came. I don't

want to see the large, populated areas of this province get most of the

lottery money. I guess the reason that I stand in debate here today is

to talk about the guidelines and the rules under which Lottery Fund

grants are given in British Columbia.

First I would like to

make a point that there are people and communities in the interior and

the north of this province. This is the area which, as I've said

before, produces the lion's share of the wealth of British Columbia.

Those people, because they choose to live in the rural areas of this

province, in small communities and unorganized areas — and those in the

lower mainland, I might add, are very lucky that they do — have

different needs and wants, most of which I've found, unfortunately, do

not meet the guidelines laid down by the present Lottery Fund

objectives. Consequently we see reports such as the latest quarterly

report released on March 12 of this year in which a total of $1,454,000

was allocated from the Lottery Fund in that three-month period — and I

have to interject, that's except for the travel grants, which are a

very miniscule part of the total amount. I see that only two grants in

that three-month period in this quarterly report, a total of $38,900,

went to projects in the northern two-thirds of this province — a mere

$38,900 from a fund which dealt out $1,454,000. This has been the case,

I might add, in report after report that I've seen in the last several

months, where the bulk of the funding is going to the lower mainland.

[Mr. Ritchie in the chair.]

Let's

just take a look. I'd like to pick out some of the larger grants. I

won't read them all; there is quite a list but only two went to the

northern two-thirds of this province: Maple Ridge Amateur Athletic

Association, $29,545; B.C. Forest Museum Society, Duncan, $130,000;

Mission Workshop Association, $45,000; Vancouver Welsh Society,

$32,000; Kitsilano Show Boat Committee, $20,000; Langley Family

Services Association, $50,500; and the Corporation of the District of

Burnaby, $280,000. The British Columbia Humane Trapping Committee, a

group which consistently attempts to put the trappers of the interior

of this province out of business, received $29,000 from the Lottery

Fund; Kitsilano Inter-Neighbourhood Development Society, $12,000; the

town of Merritt, $122,500. I could go on and on. All but $38,900 went

to the lower one-third of this province.

I don't selfishly

say that those very worthy groups and probably very worthy causes

should not get the money they did get from the fund. I'm only making

the point that I feel very strongly that more of that money should

return to where the wealth of this province is made. There are very few

grants going to the north, and I say it's the way in which the

decisions are made to allocate those grants that is in error. The

guidelines are wrong and they must be changed as to the eligibility of

projects put forward through application. These guidelines, in my

estimation, are prejudicial; they're prejudicial, as we see, to the

northern part of this province, and I think they must be changed.

Having made that point I would once again — and this time on the floor

of this House — ask the Provincial Secretary to make the necessary

changes which will recognize those of our citizens who live in the

interior of this province, and recognize the particular needs of those

who live essentially in the northern two-thirds of the province.

Having

said that, I'd like to point out what happens when those guidelines

cannot consider the needs of those small communities. For two years I

have attempted through the Lottery Fund to provide for the people in a

very small community in my constituency.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Member, one that I visit quite often — as often as you visit yours.

particular, I'm talking about the children of that community of Fort

Fraser and the attempt by a group of people in that community to obtain

lottery funds for an adventure playground. Application was made for a

mere $12,000 for the children of a have-not community, where there are

very few amenities, particularly for the children, for obvious reasons.

Consequently there's a very real need to assist this community and its

children in the building of that adventure playground. The guidelines

say that such playgrounds — get this, Mr. Member — cannot be built on

school grounds with the help of Lottery Fund money. Aside from the fact

that this community has little other suitable land on which to build

the playground, where else would it be better to build the playground

than on the school grounds? The guidelines must be changed.

There

are many other instances; I've only picked this one. There are many

other instances in my riding — and I've heard it from other members in

this House — where lottery funds have been turned down for reasons not

encountered in the urban areas of this province, in the lower mainland

or on Vancouver Island. These particular problems only exist in the

interior. The guidelines must be changed to fit those problems. This

one is for the children of the community. Surely there is no greater

need than for the Lottery Fund to be used for the children of our small

communities in this province. I would ask again that the guidelines be

changed, and that it be done in recognition of the needs of the

citizens of the small communities in unorganized areas of British

Columbia. I make this plea on the floor of this House. Once again I

would ask the minister to consider the children of Fort Fraser.

MRS. DAILLY:

Before I go on to the subject of libraries, which I'm most interested

in and about which I want to bring a few points to the minister's

attention, I'd like to express my sympathy with the last speaker. As I

listened to him, I couldn't help thinking that it's very typical of

this government, which he so tentatively supports, that they have money

for a massive playground for adults, B.C. Place, but they can't find a

few thousand dollars for a playground for children. I think that about

puts it where it is when it comes to the priorities of the Social

Credit government.

I want to talk about libraries and

priorities. I know the minister started off by reading congratulatory

letters from people, because of the recent grants handed out to

libraries in British Columbia. The point I want to make is that when it

comes to libraries in British Columbia, we should be very proud of one

fact. The libraries in British Columbia — and I don't know whether the

minister is aware of this fact — have the highest per capita use in

Canada. I think that's a very interesting and positive fact. It speaks

for the reading interests of the citizens of British Columbia. The

negative aspect of this is that at the same time we have the highest

per capita use of libraries in Canada, we also have one of the lowest

per capita direct-grant fundings by any provincial government in

[ Page 5334 ]

Canada.

That's in spite of the increase which the minister has just announced

with much fanfare, suggesting that everything is pretty good out there

in the library system now.

Mr. Chairman, to my mind,

libraries should always have priority. The only reason that the Social

Credit government moved on the problems in the Nicola valley, in the

Kamloops area — which were enunciated again by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — is not that the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and others went to him first, asking him to increase

the grants, which were so pitiful last year — in fact, one year they

didn't get an increase — that they had to start closing libraries. Do

you know what it was? It was because the citizens of the area went to

their elected officials, rose up, put on a tremendous campaign and

said: "We won't take this any more from this government."

For

the minister to suggest that they were so magnificent this year in

handing out these increased grants.... I can't help wondering whether,

if the citizens in those areas had not become so vocal and so strong

over their concern for the cutbacks, we would never have seen any moves

at all. I know it's all right for people to say: "Well, that's how

governments move and react. They have to react to public pressure." But

you know, when the government can reach a point with their library

funding that libraries actually have to shut their doors to the public,

as we know they had to under the Social Credit government, then I say

that shows a government that doesn't really have any true commitment to

the funding of libraries in this province. I say best wishes to the

people out there who mounted a magnificent campaign and got the

government to move — somewhat belatedly, but to move to some degree —

to prevent the drastic closures.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was pitifully little, though.

MRS. DAILLY:

And we're still at a very low level compared to the other provinces of

Canada. It reminds one of the school taxes, Mr. Chairman, where I'm

sure we are now also one of the lowest contributors in direct aid of

any provincial government. I'm not going to hold the Provincial

Secretary responsible for that today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, he was Minister of Finance.

MRS. DAILLY:

Yes, he was in the past, and I'm sure he must be very upset about

what's happening to the schools in his own area of Vancouver. I hope he

is, and I hope we will see some changes.

Back to the

libraries, though. I think that the basic concern is that even though

we have this increased grant this year, it is still because of

inflation — I think the minister is aware of this — and because of the

people who are interested in using the libraries. It is still not

keeping up with the needs of the people in British Columbia. I'm

naturally concerned with the greater Vancouver area, because Burnaby is

part of the Greater Vancouver Library Federation. I know that there

they are serving more people with less money in 1981 than they had in

1976. Mr. Minister, I know you may answer me and say: "Well, there's

only so much money to go around." But I want to reiterate that this is

an issue of priorities. As long as there's money for edifices and

monuments to this government, surely there can be money for libraries.

The

other concern I have with the whole library policy in our province

today is that we've gone backwards from the NDP years, when there was

an honest attempt to try to start a complete and cohesive library

development scheme for the province of British Columbia. We can't blame

the present minister, but one of the former Socred ministers certainly

emasculated that system by stopping comprehensive library development.

Without any consultation, an arbitrary move was made. The people out

there whom I've talked to in the library system are very concerned that

there still seems to be a lack of comprehensive commitment to

developing libraries on a cooperative basis throughout the province. I

would think that a government that are so concerned about moneys for

libraries, and who have to have it pulled out of them sometimes, would

be interested in helping and in giving provincial leadership to the

development of a cohesive system, which perhaps in time could be less

expensive.

Those are some of the points that I'm really

concerned about. For the minister to just stand up and read a few

letters lauding him and his government and then think that everything

is okay.... I want to tell him it is not. For those people who wrote, I

would say certainly they should have written. They're always thankful

for something, and fair enough — they have to work with this government.

hope that the minister does not sit back and think now that all is well

in the libraries of British Columbia. The increased cost of books, as

you're all aware, has become almost unbelievable today. For example,

the average cost of buying one book for the business division of the

Vancouver Public Library increased by 31 percent since 1976. Another

example is that the increase for an average book in the area of science

and technology from 1976 to 1980 was 44 percent. While I'm speaking on

behalf of their problems with the increased cost, may I remind the

minister that the provincial Legislative Library faces the same

increased costs.

What I'm saying is that they're really

literally marking time. They have an expanded clientele. They have

tremendously inflated costs for books and for operating in other areas.

This government, if they're truly interested in supporting libraries,

simply must decide that libraries should always receive an adequate

amount of money so that they don't just slip back to the way the

funding was four or five years ago. I'm really concerned that the

minister seems to be sitting back and thinking that all is well out

there. We have a long way to go to bring the the Social Credit

government's contribution up to contributions of other provincial

governments to libraries.

There is another concern that's

been expressed to me by some people who are on library boards today. I

don't know where it has arisen, but they must be getting vibes from

this Social Credit government that perhaps they are not committed to

the library board. They are concerned that they may be turned over to

committees or to elected officials on councils, etc. The library boards

of this province — I think the minister would agree if he's attended

any conventions of library trustees — are committed and dedicated

people. They're not paid, but they really believe in pushing for the

future of libraries and believe in their commitment to libraries for

all the people of British Columbia. They are really, truly committed.

They are concerned that perhaps there may be an attempt to turn over

their work to committees. I wonder if the minister could confirm

whether this is an intent under his new ministry since he came or if he

himself and his ministry are committed to the library boards of British

Columbia. I wonder if you could react to some of those statements now.

[ Page 5335 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I want to assure the member that in no way have I said or inferred that

this is any temporary interest on behalf of the libraries. It's

continuing support through my ministry and personally to whatever can

be done to assist them. I think the member's really aware of that. I

will repeat what I said a couple days ago with regard to the level of

service provided in British Columbia. In a recent position paper on

regional libraries prepared by the directors of Ontario's regional

library systems and presented to that province's Minister of Culture

and Recreation, the directors referred to British Columbia as having

"achieved the finest level of public library service in Canada."

agree with the member's desire to improve library service. We must

appreciate that, from a dollar bill point of view, it isn't only the

grants we provide through our estimates here, but that in addition to

that the recreational facilities fund provides capital grants. I think

last year there was $1,182,000 provided for capital purposes. For her

information, in the coming year the Greater Vancouver Library

federation system will be increased from $940,000 to $1,380,000.

part, her concern over the level of funding of libraries might have

been appropriate if applied to last year. Certainly when it's increased

from $1.46 per capita last year to something like $2.93 per capita in

the coming year.... Those are statistics, but it gives you some idea of

the level of increase that we've been able to generate. I had to get

down on bended knees to Treasury Board.

I have just one

further comment with regard to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). He

and I have had many conversations on lotteries. I think we try to do

our best and bend over backwards to do more than we could in other

areas. He refers to areas which have a lack of facilities or funds to

be able to provide them. It is difficult when you get applications for

facilities in schools, or Ministry of Education facilities, where other

funds and means are provided. I would like to say to him that to

compare different areas and how much they are funded is really not

appropriate. I find that some constituencies never apply for lottery

grants,

whereas in others there is a great deal of activity and a great

deal of need for facilities or assistance to capital projects that

isn't available through any other source. So it doesn't seem to fall to

any uniformity depending on the constituency.

I want to

emphasize to all members that if you want to come to see me in my

office at any time with lottery grant concerns, I'd be most happy to

talk to you. I've been doing that in the past. Maybe you're not aware

of that. If you want to bring a list of them or any individual ones,

we'll be happy to meet with you and discuss reviewing the application

and so on.

It does depend on the number of requests which

come from a given area. Some areas don't seem to have any demand or

need for lottery grants; others have a great deal. As for the lack of

funding for the far reaches of the province, when you look through the

lists of quarterly releases of lottery funds, you find a great many go

to areas other than Vancouver: the Stewart Historical Society, $15,000;

Prince George and District Association for the Retarded, $12,000; a

northern tour of the Vancouver Symphony Society, $100,000; Chetwynd and

District Recreation Commission, $55,000; Fort St. John ski hill,

$100,000.

I'm happy to have the member approach me, as he

has done before, in terms of lottery grants with which he is concerned,

but we do have guidelines and you have to be fair with one and all.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, I've got to make the point to the minister once again

about the application made by the small group of people in Fort Fraser.

I think it's a clear indication and it backs up my argument that

changes should be made to the guidelines. Here we have a very small,

unorganized community in which possibly 400 people live. The school

children there have very few amenities — for very good reason, living

in such a small community. All they're asking for is a lousy $12,000

for an adventure playground. If the guidelines of this fund can't be

changed enough to allow those children to receive a $12,000 grant from

a $1 million fund, I think that's sad.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I've

got to make this point here today. I'm not going to get off this horse;

I'll ride it into the ground if necessary. Those children deserve that

playground. We in the north probably buy more lottery tickets per

capita than anywhere else in this province, because we are gamblers. We

are free enterprisers, and we buy those kinds of tickets. I would

suggest that the lion's share of the money that comes to that fund

comes from the northern two-thirds of this province. I think it's a

sham that that group of people has been given the runaround for two

years, as I have, for a lousy $12,000 for an adventure playground for

the children of that community. I rest my case.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, I have just one more quick question on libraries, before

we move on to another subject. Last year when the budget came in the

minister had quite a bit of praise heaped on him and his government for

the $3 million set aside for the computerization of library services. I

understand that that whole thing is still sitting around, waiting for a

decision. After all the credit taken by Social Credit for this

magnificent $3 million, which everyone in libraries was very happy to

hear about, nothing has happened. All the interest from that fund is

being turned back right now into general revenue, which means the money

is actually shrinking at a rate of 12 percent a year. I've had a lot of

concern about this expressed to me, and I wonder if the minister can

tell us the reason for the delay and what's happening to that $3

million.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It has taken a long period

of time to expedite the disposition of that fund, but there has been

considerable study on how it would be used and quite a lot of

disagreement on what might be appropriate. A consultant was involved,

and a report was received in October. Extensive comment has been

received on this report, both from within government and outside, and

we're actively seeking the views of public libraries on this at the

moment. I would agree that it has taken more time than it should, and

will certainly attempt to expedite it.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'm going to be fairly brief. I come from an interior riding, and as

the MLA from that riding I just want to compliment the Provincial

Secretary's office and the Provincial Secretary for some of the things

that have been done. I appreciate the comments made by the member for

Omineca, because as MLA I've failed the odd time too in getting

projects approved, but we have been successful in some cases, as I'm

sure the member for Omineca has.

Just to name a few, Mr. Chairman, in the city of Grand Forks we had James Donaldson Memorial Park, a baseball

[ Page 5336 ]

diamond

which could only be used in the daylight hours, and the Kinsmen club

got together and attempted to raise funds. They worked hard to raise

funds to put lighting in that park so they could have night baseball

for young people and students, and an activity centre for the community

by using that baseball diamond in the evening of the summer months. I'm

pleased to say the Provincial Secretary's office came through with

flying colours on that.

In regard to libraries, an amount of

$113,000 was received as assistance with the construction of a new

community library in the city of Grand Forks.

There was

assistance under the Lottery Fund to help refurbish an activity centre

and hall lost by the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ through a

fire.

In Greenwood, Mrs. Beth Gough, the secretary-treasurer

of a juvenile project which tries to give our young people who have had

problems with the law the opportunity of learning a trade, spearheaded

an activity. The amount requested from and paid by the Lottery Fund was

only $3,120, but that assisted in the purchase of equipment to upgrade

the workshop facilities. I can tell you, as MLA I was very pleased to

be able to present that cheque to Mrs. Gough and to know that out of

the Lottery Fund — which, as the member for Omineca said, results from

"gambling" — money was put to good use to assist in the betterment of

our young people of this province.

Naramata received $1,000 for an addition to a library, but that $1,000 is money well spent for that small community.

Let

me give you another one that might be a little different. It deals with

the winter feeding for California bighorn sheep just outside of Oliver.

The South Okanagan Sportsman's Association was assisted in that one —

of course, our California bighorn sheep are a very important tourist

attraction for that area.

There was assistance to the

Osoyoos Community Theatre, which resulted in a lot of activity for our

young people who put on musical entertainment. The community can enjoy

listening to those orchestras and bands providing entertainment.

Another

small one was $275 from the Provincial Secretary's office to the

Summerland senior swimmers' association so they could attend the B.C.

championships in Victoria. Two hundred and seventy-five dollars doesn't

mean much, but to those people it meant a great deal, and in my opinion

it's money well spent.

I've just named a few of them, to say

to the Provincial Secretary, who administers that fund, that you can't

give us all the requests we ask for, Mr. Minister, but as MLAs we

certainly do appreciate the ones you do grant us, because it's money

well spent that assists our local communities.

MR. BARBER:

A couple of days ago I asked the Provincial Secretary if he would

review and be prepared to table with this committee at an appropriate

time the memorandum from Mr. Heal proposing the establishment of a

group of media advisers to assist the government. Has the minister read

the memo, and if so, is he prepared to accept our request for its

tabling in this House?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr.

Member, I have examined the document I think you're referring to. It's

a letter or a memorandum from the new deputy minister, but it is marked

"confidential" to other ministries, and I don't really think it would

be appropriate, any more than any other document between ministries....

After all, we