1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6613 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Misuse of communication facilities. Hon Mr. Curtis –– 6613

An Act To Establish An Institute Of Native Indian Languages For British Columbia

(Bill M216), Mr. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 6613

An Act Respecting Self Service Gasoline Outlets (Bill M217). Ms. Sanford

Introduction and first reading –– 6613

Oral Questions

Public Accounts committee meeting. Mr. Cocke –– 6614

Mr. Reynolds

Special committee for the selection of an ombudsman. Mr. Howard –– 6615

Annual report of ombudsman. Mr. Williams –– 6615

U.S. duty on Canadian pork. Ms. Sanford –– 6615

Tabling Documents –– 6616

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

On vote 60: minister's office –– 6616

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Cocke

Division

Lottery Corporation Act (Bill 43). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6628

Mr. Hanson –– 6628

Mrs. Wallace –– 6629

Mr. Barnes –– 6629

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6630

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 57: minister's office –– 6631

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Blencoe

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the members' gallery today is a former

member of this assembly. I remember well how this hall used to echo

with his scintillating debate during the time he was here. I'd like to

introduce to the House the former member for Burnaby-Edmonds, Mr. Ray

Loewen, MLA, retired.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On Monday evening, after working in the

buildings, one of our Sergeant at Arms staff suffered a heart attack;

due to some very fortunate circumstances, he is okay and is in the

Jubilee Hospital. Harry Talbot came to work in the Legislature in March

1979. He has been an attendant in the chamber for the last two years ––

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that appropriate greetings be sent, on behalf

of all of us, from your office to acknowledge the service that he has

rendered to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: If that is the express wish of the chamber, the Chair will undertake.... So ordered.

MR. ROSE: This afternoon in the gallery is Dr. Hal Weinberg,

who is a director of electoral area B, which includes ioco and Anmore

in my riding of Coquitlam-Moody. He's here to meet later on this

afternoon with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this afternoon

I take pleasure in introducing John Beenken from the sunny city of

White Rock.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming

a dear friend of mine from Terrace, president of our federal

constituency association in that area and a representative of the

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Mr. Jim Lamb.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have two special guests, David and Joyce Morgans. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: We have some guests in the gallery today from

the British Columbia Funeral Service Association: John Chasca,

president, from Vernon; Neil Allert, vice-president, from Abbotsford;

Jonathan Beenken, executive director, White Rock; John Clark,

past-president, from Trail; Ray Loewen from Burnaby; and George Wright

from Kamloops. Would the House please make them welcome.

MISUSE OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

HON. MR. CURTIS: I rise to make a ministerial statement. It appears

that yesterday, June 12, government communications facilities in the northern

part of the province were used to transmit by facsimile, and/or other electronic

systems, at least one item containing very offensive — I might say highly offensive

— racist slurs. The material may have been sent to more than one individual

in more than one government office. The individual who is apparently responsible

is an employee of the Ministry of Finance. I wanted to assure hon. members at

the earliest possible moment, bearing in mind that this occurred yesterday,

that one recipient of the material lost no time in notifying his or her superiors.

As of noon today the individual who appears to have originated transmission

of the material has been suspended without pay pending a full investigation.

MR. HOWARD: I think we are indebted to the Minister of

Finance and the government for moving quickly in dealing with such

matters, because any attempt by any citizen to cast slurs and

aspersions against anybody because of their inheritance or their racial

background is an intolerable intrusion into private rights and private

privileges of people in this province.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE

OF NATIVE INDIAN LANGUAGES

FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Hanson presented a bill intituled

An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages for British Columbia.

MR. HANSON: In speaking to this bill, I would like to point

out to the House that this is the fourth occasion that this bill has

been introduced now. It addresses a problem that is faced by the Indian

people of this province. Almost half of the native languages of Canada

are located within the boundaries of British Columbia, and as all

members are aware, these people have occupied British Columbia for

approximately 10,000 years. The situation today, Mr. Speaker, is that

because these were unwritten languages and transmitted culturally

through oral traditions, it is imperative that various kinds of

grammatical and other studies be done before the speakership that is

knowledgeable about these languages passes away. I would like to point

out to the House that since the first introduction of this bill four

years ago, I am advised by linguists that in many regions of the

province one-half of the speakers who were present and knowledgeable of

the languages four years ago are now deceased. So there is urgency to

implement such an institute, which would do a number of things. It

would: develop classroom-oriented studies of native languages which

would develop, based on those studies, literacy materials including

written alphabets, programmed language lessons, dictionaries and bodies

of texts for readings; develop and disseminate British Columbia native

literature written in native languages; and assist in the training of

British Columbia native language speakers to work as teachers and aides

in bilingual classrooms.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of this bill to meet a very

important need that is, I'm sure, recognized by all members of this

House.

Bill M216 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT RESPECTING SELF

SERVICE GASOLINE OUTLETS

Ms. Sanford presented a bill intituled

An Act Respecting Self Service Gasoline Outlets.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this bill requires that any self

service gasoline outlet in the province be required to provide also a

full service gas pump. I'm sure that once I

[ Page 6614 ]

advance my cogent arguments, the government will accept this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I've received a number of complaints from constituents

who object to self service gasoline stations. Older people find it

difficult to handle the gasoline pumps. A number of people wish to have

the oil checked on a regular basis by somebody else; they want to have

the transmission fluid levels monitored; they want the battery checked;

they want the fan belt examined. There is no doubt that since the

proliferation of the self serve stations the level of maintenance of

vehicles in the province has dropped significantly.

Mr. Speaker, people who wish to find full service stations are

finding it increasingly difficult, because they find they have to drive

farther and farther now in order to find a station that does provide

some full service for them.

The other point, and this is a very important one, Mr. Speaker, is

that passage of this bill would ensure that more jobs would be created

in this province. More jobs would be created very quickly in this

province with the passage of this bill, and they would be created

throughout the province. Traditionally it has been young people who

work at the gas pumps, and it's often the first job experience that

they ever have. Traditionally it has also been the case that the

highest level of unemployment is among young people. For that reason

alone the government should accept this bill, and I hope they do. Thank

you.

Bill M217 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE MEETING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Chairman, at great

expense to the government, the auditor-general visited the Public

Accounts Committee yesterday, and I would just like to ask the Chairman

if that committee had been properly arrived at and agreed upon by the

representative of the Socred caucus?

MR. BLENCOE: I'll do my utmost to answer the question, Mr.

Speaker. I might inform the House that indeed the time and place of

that meeting was arranged by discussions and meeting between the

Secretary and myself and was posted three days prior to the sitting of

that meeting yesterday.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary

of the Public Accounts Committee if in fact this statement by the

Chairman is true.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we're on a little bit of thin ice to start with.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, could I ask the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound to restate his question in terms that would be a little more parliamentary?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary

of the Public Accounts Committee if in fact he was advised by members

of that committee that they could not make the meeting at 12 noon and

whether it was suggested that a later time in the afternoon would be

more convenient to all members, and if he discussed that with the

Chairman of the committee.

MR. VEITCH: Yes, certainly I discussed the matter with the

Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and suggested that there

probably wouldn't be a quorum, in that many of the members would not be

here.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is somewhat irregular for the

secretary of a committee to be asked a question. The Chair should not

in that case have permitted the question. I apologize to the members

for so doing.

MR. COCKE: I'd like to ask the Chairman of the committee: how much notice did he have prior to the time of the committee starting?

MR. BLENCOE: My staff was notified — I was not notified directly –– 40 minutes prior to that meeting.

MR. REYNOLDS: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. In view

of the fact that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee can't

seem to get a quorum together for the committee, and can't seem to

arrange matters properly, is he prepared to resign as Chairman of the

committee?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe, and our caucus

believes, that this committee is the most important committee of this

House. The people's accountability must be done, and if this committee

is not allowed to meet and is frustrated by this government not turning

up for its meetings, then the people's business is not done properly in

the province of British Columbia, No, I won't resign. I insist that

this committee do its job properly.

MR. REYNOLDS: Another question for the Chairman of the

committee. My party also considers the Public Accounts Committee the

most important committee in the Legislature. In view of the fact that

there were members of the Public Accounts Committee who were on another

committee at the same time, would the Chairman make sure that he

doesn't have the next meeting at the same time as another committee

meeting that members of our Public Accounts Committee are attending, so

that we can all attend the meeting, as we wish to do?

MR. BLENCOE: I would suggest that the reason this committee

and the government is having trouble attending these meetings is that

the committee, from the government side, is made up of cabinet

ministers who cannot get to those meetings. In every other public

jurisdiction, just about, cabinet ministers do not sit on Public

Accounts. That's the reason we have problems, Mr. Speaker, and they

should not be on this committee at all. We will meet if the government

will agree to the time...

MR. NICOLSON: When they are ready to work.

MR. BLENCOE: ...when they're ready to work, indeed, and we

will get this very important committee operating in the province of

British Columbia.

[ Page 6615 ]

SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE

SELECTION OF AN OMBUDSMAN

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam. Why is the member delaying calling the special

committee with respect to the selection of the ombudsman?

MR. PARKS: I was waiting to meet to liaise with the

liaise-person the opposition asked me to liaise with, and she not being

in the House, I have had some difficulty liaising with her. But we do

have a date for a meeting, and as soon as she advises me that the

members of her party will be able to attend the meeting, it will be

formally announced.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party who are on

the ombudsman's committee will meet any damned time the Chairman gets

off his backside and calls the meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair, from

time to time, notices that members, in the spirit of debate, use

language that could better be characterized as non-parliamentary. I

would ask that the member in question would regard this as a theatre of

parliamentary language and not one to the contrary.

MR. HOWARD: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that "posterior" is a much more appropriate word.

Is the member aware that the only time that this committee met was

over two weeks ago, on May 28, for organizational purposes? No effort

whatever was expended by him to call meetings since that time.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I'm surely aware of the last time

that our committee met, but I thank the member for refreshing my

memory. In fact, contrary to his knowledge, obviously, we have

attempted to arrange a meeting with the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown). But we have a time and place in mind, and with the

acknowledgement of the opposition House Leader, we will now set that

time and place, and I'm sure all members from the opposition will

attend.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't think, Mr. Chairman, the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds was on the committee from our party. I'm sure if the

chairman of the committee would get his facts straight we might be able

to get some action around here.

I ask the Chairman another question: is he aware that the

ombudsman's term of office expires at the end of this month, and does

he consider that there is some obligation devolving upon the committee

to make a decision with respect to the provisions of the Ombudsman Act

about the reappointment of the ombudsman before the end of this month?

MR. PARKS: First, I must apologize. The member on the

committee is the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). That is the

individual I have been liaising with, not the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds.

Yes, I am sure that all members of the committee, not only myself,

are quite familiar with the time restraints dealing with the ombudsman,

and we will be dealing with them.

ANNUAL REPORT OF OMBUDSMAN

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Minister of Human Resources.

In the annual report of the ombudsman deposited with the House, the

ombudsman points out that the ministry's ever more restrictive

policies, which seek to stem the tide of demands by making it

administratively more difficult to become or remain eligible for income

assistance, are part of the reason that complaints to the ombudsman's

office increased by some 60-odd percent in the year before this and

some 39 percent in the current year. The minister has said that it is

her concern that people who are in need get the help. In view of that

concern on the part of the minister, can she assure the House that she

will meet with the ombudsman to discuss these matters of substance?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my ministry is constantly in

touch with the ombudsman's office, and he with them. They have had a

very good working relationship over these past few years.

MR. WILLIAMS: On that basis then, and noting that in fact the

caseload has doubled in terms of people asking for welfare and that the

staff has been cut by 25 percent, in view of the real problems within

the ministry, is the minister prepared to withdraw the term that she

used earlier with respect to the ombudsman's statements, which she

claimed were hogwash?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question

is no. I am not prepared to withdraw in this regard. The Ministry of

Human Resources does respond to everyone in this province who comes to

them in time of need, and they respond in both a financial and a very

good service way. In this province we will be spending almost $1

billion on income assistance, and that's a very real response to the

people who come to us in time of need. The accusation that there would

be bureaucratic delays or anything put in the way of people who come to

us in time of need is incorrect. And I say so again on the floor of

this House: the statement was incorrect; that has not been so; that has

not been the case.

MR. WILLIAMS: In view of the many cases that the ombudsman

deals with, is the minister not willing to meet with the ombudsman to

deal with this one on one, rather than relying on staff and other

people? Clearly the ombudsman takes the matter seriously, as all of us

should. Why would she not meet with the ombudsman directly, in view of

the seriousness of the charges?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could remind

the member who has just asked the question, as I did once before, that

I do not make appointments for my office on the floor of this House. I

will do that within the realm of my own office, and not in response to

questions from the opposition.

U.S. DUTY ON CANADIAN PORK

MS. SANFORD: This question is for the Minister of Finance. I

had wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder), but he's in China. Then I wanted to ask the Minister of

International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), but he is in

Korea. Then I thought I'd go to the Premier, but he is in Japan. Then I

thought I'd go to the

[ Page 6616 ]

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom). I don't know where he is. So I'm going to have to ask the

Minister of Finance. Could the Minister of Finance advise me....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: On behalf of that rowdy government, could the

Minister of Finance advise me who has made representation on behalf of

the pork producers of the province, who are facing a very serious

situation as a result of the duties that have just been applied by the

United States?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would note that two acting

ministers, acting for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, are present

in the House today. They may care to respond. If not, I'll take the

question on notice for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who will

return from his highly successful visit to Asia in a very few days.

[2:30]

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Finance obviously doesn't know

that anyone has made any representations to Ottawa or to the United

States on this issue.

The hog industry in B.C. Is worth more than $46 million annually in

cash receipts. The producers in British Columbia have estimated that

the effect of this punitive tariff will be the loss of approximately

$24 million to the B.C. economy. I'm wondering if the Minister of

Finance would assure us today that when the Premier goes down to meet

with the American authorities next week, he will raise this issue of

these duties as well as the one with respect to lumber.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I cannot offer a guarantee to the hon.

member for Comox as to the several items which the Premier will carry

to Washington, D.C., in the course of his forthcoming visit. But again,

I assure the member, if it is her wish to have that information, that

the Minister of Agriculture and Food will be here within, I would

think, three sitting days of the asking of the question. I shall ensure

that he is aware of that question.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the 1984 annual report of the British Columbia Assessment Authority.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. BARNES: I would like to have the minister's cooperation in getting

to some questions pursuant to the matter that we were discussing this morning,

the funding that the government makes available for multicultural programs in

the province — just reflecting on the conference that was held in 1979 in which

the Premier had indicated there was going to be a new provincial multicultural

policy following a study by the affiliated multicultural societies in the province.

However, that has not been forthcoming; that is, there has been no indication

that the government has decided to act on those promises. In fact, I would like

to get one of the questions clarified right away: has the minister received

any communication from any of the societies that were involved at that time

with regard to the government's plans or intentions with respect to coming

down with a multicultural policy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: As I tried to say a little earlier this

morning before the member read his long-winded report from 1979, the

issue of multiculturalism and the multicultural heritage adviser, Mr.

Enrico Diano, is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Human

Resources. So the funding is the responsibility of the Ministry of

Human Resources. There's been a change in responsibilities in the last

three months, and therefore the cultural heritage adviser answers to

the Ministry of Human Resources and no longer to the Provincial

Secretary.

MR. BARNES: I'm not sure if it's coincidence or what, but we

just happen to have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) seated in her place this afternoon. I am hoping that that is

because she would like to join in the debate and clarify this question

of responsibility for....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've clarified it.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hear the minister saying

that he has already clarified the situation. The situation is far from

clear because, with all due respect, I am left with having to rely on

what is printed in the estimates to get any idea about what is to be

debated in the House. If there have been some changes made since the

estimates were printed, and if the government has changed its policy, I

think that with respect to the opposition and those of us who are

attempting to scrutinize the spending estimates of the government, it

should be up to the government to provide some means whereby we can

debate these estimates in a responsible way.

So I have no qualms with the Minister of Human Resources, as the new

chairperson for the heritage advisory committee, standing in her place

and responding to the questions. However, if she does not wish to, I am

in no position to insist that she does, and I don't imagine the Chair

has any authority whatsoever. Her estimates are not before the House,

as you know, at this moment. So in light of that I have no other course

than to treat the estimates as though they were accurately printed and

reflect the situation as it currently stands.

In that light, I'd like to carry on. Since the government was

unable, as I say, to provide that policy statement with respect to

multiculturalism....

HON. MR. CHABOT: We did it by press release just three months ago.

MR. BARNES: There has been a statement on the government's

cultural policy? Then I would like to hear it, because that certainly

would save us some time. I was going to suggest that the only policy

seems to be the creation of the heritage adviser's office, which

should.... If he is to exemplify government policy, if it is his role

to represent the concerns of the multicultural community, then so be it.

But I would like to ask the minister how many regular meetings, for

instance, does...? You mentioned Mr. Enrico Diano as the heritage

adviser; how many meetings does he hold with some 30 multicultural

organizations in the

[ Page

6617 ]

province? Well, I just had a note, which, of

course, I already knew, Mr. Chairman, confirming my position that the

funding comes under this minister, although the minister is not the

chairman of the heritage advisory committee. He is a member of the

committee.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Indirectly.

MR. BARNES: Well, indirect or direct, I think that the

question I just asked.... How many meetings does Mr. Enrico Diano hold

with the some 30 multicultural groups and immigrant services agencies

in the province of British Columbia? How often has he met with them,

for instance, in the past year? What evidence is there, with those he

has been actively working with on the part of the government, that

there is a dialogue taking place? Would the minister indicate that

these meetings are taking place or not taking place? Because I'm going

to move right to the questions. I'm not going to carry on too much if

you deal with the questions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You'll just ask questions and cut out the jawboning?

I really can't tell you. I don't have our cultural heritage

adviser's diary in my back pocket, so I have some difficulty responding

as to how many meetings he's had with the 30 multicultural

organizations in the province. I know that from my experience, when I

had a close association with the cultural heritage adviser, he did have

a very close rapport and relationship with the various multicultural

groups in the province. I can't tell you precisely. I presume that he's

there, ready and willing to help any of those organizations whenever

help is needed.

MR. BARNES: You are still a member of the committee, right?

If so, surely you know whether you've met with Mr. Enrico Diano in the

past year, and you know how many times the committee has met with him.

You said you have no record of his diary, but you're on the committee,

and if there's been any meeting with the cabinet committee....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, the cabinet committee?

MR. BARNES: Yes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: With the cabinet committee, I think there've been about three meetings in the last three months which Mr. Diano attended.

MR. BARNES: It's going to be a rather laborious afternoon unless we get some elaboration.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You told me not too many words.

MR. BARNES: You said something about not too much jawboning, I think, or something along those lines.

What I would like to find out is the role of Mr. Enrico Diano. What

is his specific function, his authority? What is his ability to deliver

services to the people that he is representing, and are you responding?

In other words, is he actually carrying out government policies, and in

what specific ways is he doing so?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, he's.... I don't want to start getting

involved in discussing the cultural heritage adviser, because he's answerable

to the Minister of Human Resources, not the Provincial Secretary. He was answerable

to me for three years, but now I don't want to start answering for the Minister

of Human Resources on this issue. I'm sure I answered any questions you

might have had about Mr. Diano in my estimates last year, but this year it's

not my function to answer on behalf of what Mr. Diano is doing. I know I've

had many meetings with him, and from those many meetings, by ourselves or by

attending cultural group meetings in Vancouver, I've come to realize, through

my talking to these various groups, that he has a close association with them.

They're very supportive of his post and very supportive of him as a person

in the function he's fulfilling.

MR. BARNES: I certainly don't wish to question his geniality,

friendliness and whether he's popular — I'm sure that he is. I've met

the man myself on a number of occasions and find him to be a very

pleasant person, so I have no qualms with that. My concern is the

function of his office vis-à-vis the questions that I was raising this

morning in terms of those very real manifest needs of that great

expanse of people we have out there that we call the multicultural

community. I'm talking in terms of the ability of the heritage adviser

to provide the services to carry out the great amount of concerns and

needs on behalf of the government for the multicultural community.

[2:45]

In the public accounts for 1984-85, $225,000 is

listed as having been allocated for the office of the heritage adviser.

I would like to know a breakdown, if I could, of that $225,000. It does

not really sound like a great deal of money, in any event, Mr.

Chairman. I note that also there was only $75,000 available for grants

to the community by the heritage adviser. So I am sure there must be a

greater amount of funds available. Is this is a reflection of the

government's policy for programs to the multicultural community? How

much of this $225,000, then, is earmarked for grants, and how much does

the minister estimate will be allocated to the cultural heritage

adviser for the current year? We were speaking of the situation last

year. How much will he receive this year, and how much of that will be

available for grants? You see, the concern is how much will actually

reach the groups that require the service.

In response to some of my questions this morning, the minister

stated that there had been no cutbacks in cultural programs. He was

making a distinction, I realize, between pure cultural programs —

perhaps the arts and various events — and human services as such, like

of problems that people run into who do not have a total function with

But this is an issue that somehow has been sidestepped. When I

listed those peoples' impressions of what their ethnic background was

this morning — and I know it was a rather long list — I think it did

put before this House some perspective on how many people are involved.

You know, we can talk in generalities about the population of British

Columbia, and one could get the impression that we were all a sort of

bland group of a collection of people of the same stripe, the same

station and that there's no individuality, no diversity and no cultural

difference.

Although we may be basically striving to survive within the system,

I can assure you that collectively these problems are immense and they

are very human. They are not unique strictly to British Columbia they

are Canadian. It's a mosaic that we're talking about. We're talking

about the realities of

[ Page 6618 ]

our policies, of our culture and of how we live in this democratic society.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You see, I don't want to get into a confrontation

with the minister, but when he makes remarks like "keep spinning it

out" as I'm speaking to him and trying to get some idea about what the

government's commitment is to the multicultural community in this

province, I feel that he may not fully appreciate the very real problem

that I'm attempting to present to the House this afternoon.

I'm surprised too, because just the other day the minister and I

were able to acknowledge that there's room for everybody to grow, that

we all learn. He made it quite clear that having the responsibility for

the arts in this province for the past few years has proven to be

enlightening, and that he feels that it has had a positive effect in

his job. I believe it has, so I'm not going to digress into a

counterattack for any of those asides that the minister may make.

I would like him, if he would, to respond to my specific question

about the $225,000. How much of that goes towards the operation of the

office? How much goes toward the expense of the salary of Mr. Diano?

How much goes toward his office staff? How much is remaining for grants?

HON. MR. CHABOT: When the member thought that I was

attempting to divert him or throw him off base.... Needless to say, it

was quite evident when the member for Victoria approached the member

that he wanted to make sure that you were going to be able to continue

to keep this estimate going until such time as he could gather the kind

of information he's attempting to gather. Don't try to kid me about

that point of view, you know. I've been around here for a little while.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 60.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is mistaken. Firstly, let me just

say that my estimates do not contain funding for the cultural heritage

program or the cultural heritage adviser. We are funding his program

through the lottery. So as I said a little earlier, I have a very

indirect association with the cultural heritage adviser, who is

answerable to the Ministry of Human Resources.

You've attempted to identify the budget as $225,000. This year the

budget is $306,500. His operating budget is $109,236, leaving $197,264

for other programs. The cultural heritage adviser has made a request

through the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), as

chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage, for additional

funding. Beyond the $306,500, he has asked for an additional amount of

$200,000 for various projects which he would initiate in the province

on behalf of multiculturalism. My response to the Minister of Human

Resources has been to convey to Mr. Diano, the contractor who is

answerable to the Ministry of Human Resources, that once we have seen

the specifics of the program on which he wishes to spend this

additional $200,000, we will give it consideration. But I'm not

prepared to approve $200,000 until I see a specific program in place.

MR. BARNES: I had no idea that the office of the heritage

adviser was being funded through the lotteries. I thought that was

coming directly from consolidated revenue.

This sheds a different light on the situation altogether. The

minister is now saying that the government has not made a direct

commitment in terms of its budgetary planning, that it is coming out of

lotteries. However, if I hear him correctly, he states that

approximately $200,000 will remain after expenses.... There's $306,500

in the budget for this fiscal year, some $109,000 of that for operating

expenses. He's asking for another $200,000. So Mr. Diano is asking for

approximately $400,000.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: He's asking for $506,000 exactly? That figure is far short of what the committee is asking for.

You have before you, I'm sure, a letter written to you on February

25, 1985, by Dr. Stanley B. Knight, president of Service for

Mosaic. I know the minister is familiar with this organization.

"Dear Mr. Chabot:

"Further to our earlier reports to you, enclosed

please find Mosaic quarterly service statistics for October to December

1984. Please note that we had 9,333 client contacts over this period.

Of this total, 30.5 percent were citizens. Similarly, 31.16 percent of

new clients were citizens. Significantly, 34.89 percent of our requests

were from provincial government departments."

Imagine that — 34.89 percent of those 9,333 client contacts come

from provincial departments. Those provincial departments, by the way,

were outlined in a brief to the Provincial Secretary: Attorney-General,

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Education, Health, Human Resources,

Labour, Lands, Parks and Housing, Provincial Secretary and Government

Services, Transportation and Highways, Universities, Science and

Communications.

In their concerns they state:

"The elimination of the refugee resettlement fund,

language — "parent and preschoolers programs, Ministry of Education,

and the erosion of community grants funding, Ministry of Human

Resources, have created a financial crisis for our organizations. We

are concerned that the provincial government has not demonstrated in

what manner it will take up its responsibility to extend services to

This little saga has been going on since April 1979.

To continue Dr. Knight's letter:

"We are hopeful that your officials who are following

residents in particular, and immigrants in general, will find the

information provided by our societies as significant data for policy

development. In order that you will have greater understanding of our

services, we have also included five case studies related to services

provided to sample clients from Japan, Italy, Greece, Vietnam and Korea.

"With regard to the creation of a B.C. cultural

integration fund of $1 million, we would like you to know what other

provinces are doing with immigrant-serving agencies."

[ Page

6619 ]

This, Mr. Chairman, is the point that I wish to make. If the

minister approves the extra funds from the lotteries, bringing the

total available to Mr. Diano to $506,000, he will still be only halfway

there in terms of the demonstrated needs of this society.

Then they go on to mention Alberta: $1.2 million per year in grants

to non-profit agencies that are serving immigrants through the

settlement branch, Department of Labour. Ontario: approximately $4

million in grants to non-profit agencies serving immigrants through the

Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Manitoba — a province with few

immigrants — under their access program, has recently hired a

coordinator and five bilingual workers to assist immigrants. Copies of

the letter, Mr. Chairman, were sent to the Hon. Grace McCarthy, Hon.

Jim Chabot, Hon. Bob McClelland and Hon. Jack Heinrich as members, I'm

sure, of that committee. We got in touch with the Mosaic society and

were informed that as yet they have not had a response.

[3:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read my answer.

MR. BARNES: I'll be glad to. Give it to me. When you stand I

certainly hope you will read it, because I'm informed that there's been

no response yet from the Provincial Secretary.

Needless to say, very little money is trickling down to the various

groups that are involved. I would like the minister, when he responds,

to state specifically how much money is getting to those organizations.

By the way, the organizations that were signators to the brief that the

minister received are also listed, and for the committee's benefit they

include: Immigrant and Multicultural Services Society, Prince George;

Immigrant Resources Project, Vancouver; Immigrant Services Society of

B.C., Vancouver; Intercultural Association of Greater Victoria; Jewish

Family Services, Vancouver; Kamloops-Cariboo Regional Immigrant

Services Society; Langley Refugee Resource Centre; Matsqui-Abbotsford

Community Services; Mosaic, Vancouver; Oasis, Vancouver; Success,

Vancouver; Surrey Delta Immigrant Services Society. Those were the

organizations who, by the way, operate with a very small paid staff.

Most of their services rely on volunteers. Many times, Mr. Chairman, we

have listened in this assembly to various cabinet ministers state the

importance of volunteerism. I can remember when the former Minister of

Human Resources, Mr. Vander Zalm, wiped out the community resources

board. One of the things he always stated was that volunteerism is the

thing, as he was wiping out all those volunteers. "Volunteerism is the

thing. We've got to have more people volunteering. We've got to have

more people helping themselves." Well, I think that list of

organizations I just named have a proud record of tremendous community

support. But you cannot expect people of the kind of expertise that is

required to do the highly specialized jobs, the jobs requiring a

tremendous amount of skill, to be able to volunteer.

I think it is a pretty tragic testimony on the part of this

government for us to have to realize today that the funding of the

Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee has to rely on lotteries. There is

no real commitment on the part of this government to advance those

funds on a long-term basis, a commitment that would be a very small

amount of money.

We learned also this morning that the lotteries are expected to

generate something like $250 million this year. The minister said "more

or less." He wasn't absolutely certain, but he indicated it would be

approximately $250 million gross, and that after operating costs and

after costs for prizes there would be $69,340,000 remaining for

grants. It's hard to imagine that the people of British Columbia are

spending that kind of money — $69 million — on lotteries, but they are

doing it.

As they are doing it, we are finding an interesting transformation

taking place in terms of government policy. The new industry is going

to take advantage of those people's addictions — whatever they do for

kicks, like alcohol and....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I would say that anyone who gambles the way I

used to gamble when I was in the army is hooked. From my personal

experience, there is such a thing as being addicted to gambling. I

think that when you see those high-pressure ads.... When you spend

$20 million for government information services, there's got to be

something in the high-pressure sales. This is what happens: a very

large part of the lotteries budget goes towards promotion. This is

becoming a new industry in British Columbia.

The minister took offence when the member for North Okanagan (Mr.

MacWilliam) suggested that the government was on its way to legalizing

gambling in the province: he said that couldn't be changed without an

amendment to the Criminal Code, and he gave some excuses. I can suggest

to the Chair that the government certainly sees the advantages of

exploiting this lottery game. They have very consistently begun to

remove what used to be paid for through tax dollars and through

statutory responsibility. They are shifting it to the Lottery Fund. I

think this is a clear example — what we're discussing today — of how

that is happening with the Heritage Advisory Board receiving its

funding from the Lottery Fund.

Having touched on the funding aspect, let's deal specifically again

with the function. There is some real concern about the function of

that office. Although the minister is saying he is not responsible, I

now find out not only that he's not responsible directly as chairman of

the committee but he is claiming that he doesn't even have

responsibility for funding directly; that he's funding indirectly

through the lotteries branch. But how could it be that $69,340,000 can

be spent on all kinds of things. We know what they could be. And there

is not one single million dollars for something as important as this

program. I think that that question should be addressed. One million

dollars is not a lot of money. I think that the people of British

Columbia are going to be quite surprised when they find out that

they're buying lottery tickets, and we can't fund a program such as

this.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that the arguments being

made by the first member for Vancouver Centre are very important ones

and address the fundamental responsibilities of this minister. I really

think this member should continue and complete his remarks because he

is illustrating very clearly how the government is abrogating its

statutory responsibilities and putting over the funding of many

services to having them funded through lotteries and gambling, when the

government should be taking more substantial measures to creative

employment and provide services required. I think the member should

continue.

[ Page 6620 ]

MR. BARNES: This morning the Provincial Secretary responded to a question by stating:

"The member has asked a lot of questions regarding

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

branch in my ministry has a cost of about $550,000, and then we do give

grants to the various cultural groups throughout British Columbia. Some

$1.5 million of that funding comes from the special purposes fund, and

then we give from lotteries over and above, which would include the

cultural heritage adviser. We give about $5.5 million, for a total of

$7 million, to cultural activities in this province."

And he says: "We have not cut back any of the funding to the cultural

groups in this province. We have increased the funding....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Right.

MR. BARNES: Well, he says "right," but in 1983 your

government drastically cut funding to the immigrant service agencies of

British Columbia. In 1982 the province provided 28 percent of the total

funding for those organizations. In 1984 this was down to about 9

percent. As I recall on the

schedule that I looked at and got these

notes from, the federal government's share was increasing, while the

provincial government's share was decreasing.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a government that likes

to play the shell game. It says one thing and does another, and

probably it does that because I think it has become a little arrogant.

It probably feels that the opposition can't get accurate information,

and that they won't be able to make their case because they're going to

have their facts incorrect. But, you know, one day we will have access

to information; Public Accounts will become more than a charade; we'll

be able to make a phone call to a lotteries branch or to any other

branch and be able to get information as we should as elected members

of this House, regardless of whether you're the government or the

opposition. These days will come to an end. The only reason they

haven't come to an end is because the government has a hidden agenda

with respect to what it's doing in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we should not forget that at least one

member on that side of the House, at least one person, is expressing an

opinion that I find dangerously close to identifying a trend on that

side of the House as to what's happening in the province of British

Columbia. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we get back to vote 60, the estimates of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

MR. BARNES: This is directly related to the question of

funding for multiculturalism in the province of British Columbia, and

one of those members on that side of the House has stated on many

occasions, nationally, that multiculturalism is nothing but a mess. He

is opposed to it and feels that the government should spend nothing on

multiculturalism. This is despite what is happening with the federal

Ministry of Multiculturalism, despite what is happening in other

provinces and despite that long list that I read out and those

statistics with respect to the numbers of people in this province who

various difficulties trying to keep up with the changes that are going

on in this society, who are not getting a fair shake, but who are

taxpayers. We're not talking about a lot of money. We're talking about

$1 million, as some kind of....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That's a lot of money.

MR. BARNES: That's not a lot of money when you think of

northeast coal where you're spending $1 billion for a hole in the wrong

place, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to the vote, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking very calmly until the Minister of Forests began to interject.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My apologies.

[3:15]

MR. BARNES: That's okay, you don't need to apologize. You just helped me raise my temperature.

ALRT is another.... Well, we don't need to get into that, do we?

We're going to have a shortfall all over the place. The point is that

the government's priorities are different than what they should be for

the people of British Columbia. It's been going on bit by bit all the

time. It's about time we began to become aware. At one time human

rights in this province was something we could be proud of, and now

we've become a barren land when it comes to people's access to justice

and opportunity for a fair hearing. The whole idea of appeal is another

question altogether. There is no more appeal to this council. That is

why there is no funding for immigrant services. That is why the

multicultural program has to rely on lottery funds. The government is

making no commitment itself. We're talking about $1 million when

they've got $69 million clear profit coming out of the Lottery Fund.

They can't afford $1 million for something as important as this?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I've just about made the main point that I want

to make. I don't think the minister is going to give us the

satisfaction of a commitment on this. He did state that there is a

policy in place, despite my charges that he hadn't responded to Dr.

Knight and others who have been trying to get the government to state

its policies. I know of no response to the study that was done by Judge

Norman Oreck soon after that 1979 program to develop a cultural policy.

I know it was a very extensive document. It made a number of

recommendations dealing with citizenship and the real problems of

persons who are unfortunate enough to have a disadvantage in some way

in our society and need access to services, the justice system,

training and retraining. Then, of course, there's a very special

problem with females in society; some of those cases are even worse.

They're still being exploited, as we know.

There is a very real need to provide at least a minimum amount of

service where people want to volunteer. You may have 100 volunteers and

five paid people. That's a pretty good deal, even in terms of the

government's economics. But why is the government not opting to support

these programs? There is probably a fundamental reason, Mr. Chairman,

one that I feel is tragically unfortunate. But it's glaringly obvious.

The government is cutting back, and it's cutting back in areas where

it's hurting people. People are beginning to become disillusioned and

give up hope, especially when they hear of

[ Page 6621 ]

some of the decisions the government has made with respect to its

program for generating jobs and generating economic activity in the

community. I can't help but mention these points, as much as I'd like

to adhere strictly to the rules of the House.

I think that there comes a time when you have to become a bit

alarmed at the glaring arrogance and seeming indifference of this

government from time to time. I think there is some question about this

government should be putting its money where its mouth is. The Premier

made a promise in April 1979 that he really should keep. If he's not

going to keep it, he should come into this House and say why he's not

going to keep it. It's pretty obvious to everyone that that road toward

a provincial multicultural policy was really a road toward the May 4

election, because nothing has happened since. Five or six years later,

the government has reduced its funding for immigrant services to a mere

9 percent, while it is anticipating a $69,340,000 profit from

lotteries. It is turning its back on hundreds of volunteers and a few

paid staff who want to try to deal with the thousands of people in

serious, legitimate need. Those citizens should have a constitutional

right to at least a few of the basic amenities in this society. We take

far too much for granted with respect to their tolerance and their

ability to function without any help. It's tough out there, Mr.

Chairman, and you know it. It's very difficult out there for people who

come to this country and do not have the ability to compete on an

equitable basis with others in society. We also know that that's a

characteristic all over the world. It's about time we understood the

importance of more humanitarian measures and recognized the spill-off

benefit from encouraging people rather than discouraging them.

It's the same thing in education — secondary, post-secondary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: We could go on and on. I had some notes down here about northeast coal...

MR. CHAIRMAN: They would be out of order, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: ...and government information services and the Coquihalla Highway...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Out of order.

MR. BARNES: ...but I'm not going to mention them. I have

to smile at that because that reminds me of.... Well, there is

something going on right now that it reminds me of, but I don't think

I'll share that either.

Well, as I've said, Mr. Chairman, the issue really is one of desire,

of will. It's not really a question of ability. Now the government has

coined a few phrases about ability to pay when it comes to increases

for wages, etc., etc. We've got all these fancy terms, but it's a

matter of will. It's a matter of recognizing what is important, and I

think there's been ample evidence here today to demonstrate that in its

wisdom the government simply is not able to see the consequences of

what it's doing.

Now I know that it has its ideological differences, and I know that

they very stridently fight every political war they can on the basis of

the good guys versus the bad guys, and that's fair enough. But we're

talking about a government that was elected by the people of British

Columbia to serve all of the people of British Columbia, regardless of

their station and their personal situation, to give them access — not

only give them, but to have them feel that they have access — and for

them to have the option. But that isn't the case.

I've spared the House some of those case histories, but they are

there indeed, and I think a government is measured by its ability to

respond to the most extreme and dire straits that a person may be in.

You can go to the food banks any day and find someone you should care

about — and we can care about. In fact, it is good business to care

about them, as we discussed the other day about the arts. We talked

about the value of spending dollars on the arts, on helping the guy who

spends a great deal of his life trying to develop a craft or a skill or

achieve some kind of sense in which he feels he's contributing, some

sense of wholeness.

But we're losing that, and when we look at the dollars that are

involved, how can we justify it? Are we so callous that we say we can't

afford it? How can we not afford it? We are increasing our costs on

remedial programs, incarceration. People are having all kinds of

emotional breakdowns. The health care costs are going up; we're having

to raise premiums to try to pay for all the health costs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. To vote 60, please. Now just the caution light, for your information.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. But these are the things that I'm

asking the minister if he would rethink his position on, at least with

respect to the request by Dr. Knight for the $1 million to bring us in

line with the rest of Canada. We have a federal Minister of

Multiculturalism, and have had one for a number of years, for good

reason. Canada is a mosaic of people; we all should feel right about

being Canadian, and I think that in the province of British Columbia we

are discouraging people by not providing them the funding that they

need. Even when we do, they have to rely on the lotteries fund.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a few words in response to the member.

First of all, the majority of his talk had nothing to do with my

ministry. I just want to respond regarding the letter from Stan Knight

of Mosaic, in which he requested funding. The letter was written in

late February. My responsibilities for the cultural heritage cabinet

committee and the cultural heritage adviser ceased about March 2. If I

recall correctly, and I don't have a copy of it here, I wrote to Dr.

Knight and informed him that I was no longer responsible for

multicultural affairs, and that I had referred his letter to the

Minister of Human Resources for her attention.

Now the member as he speaks fails to take into consideration the

fact that government revenues have turned down very dramatically in

recent years. He seems to forget that. Government has had to cut back

in many areas. That's part of the logic that the member fails to take

into consideration when he pleads for this funding — one million here

and a half a million there and so forth. He also touches on many of the

programs that were cut out of various ministries of government. They

weren't cut out of my ministry, because essentially there's been no

cutback in my ministry.

The ESL program, for instance, doesn't come under my ministry. That comes out of the Ministry of Education. The

[ Page 6622 ]

job-training fund, as well, is part of the Ministry of Education.

Many of the program that you're talking about were funded by Human

Resources, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education, not by

the Provincial Secretary. So all your pleading for specific programs

should have been with other ministers of the cabinet, rather than

myself.

All I can say about multicultural activities as far as my ministry

is concerned, even though I have a very indirect relationship with the

cultural heritage adviser, is that never before since I've been

minister has there been more money allocated for the cultural heritage

adviser. It has increased consistently since I've been the minister

because of the need of addressing certain programs and certain

initiatives out there.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

But it was never the intention that the funding through the cultural

heritage adviser should pick up the slack from the various programs

that were cut back by other ministries of government. The way you

reflect on the funding, because of the very difficult budgetary

problems the provincial government has.... You talk about the

lottery funds as if those dollars are tainted. There are a lot of

communities in British Columbia that are ready and willing to accept

those dollars for a great variety of projects, be they recreational

facilities.

You talk about one measly million dollars from the Lottery Fund.

Well, we spend a fair amount of money for medical research. We spend

$3.15 million for medical research each and every year, and that comes

from lottery funds. Are you suggesting that we should take that million

dollars that you are asking for out of medical research? I don't know

what you are suggesting. Should we take it out of cultural programs?

Shall we take it out of sporting programs? I don't know.

MR. BARNES: Northeast coal.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Northeast coal has nothing to do with

lottery funds and has nothing to do with my ministry. You seem to be a

little confused. This is not a dictatorship in British Columbia, and as

a minister of the Crown, I can't possibly speak for the whole

government. I speak for my ministry, and I can't go beyond that scope.

I attempt to address all of the issues that are raised to me, and

attempt to provide funding for what I consider a public interest

situation from the Lottery Fund, and I will continue to do so, thank

you very much.

[3:30]

MR. MITCHELL: Before I get started, and before you start

ruling me out of order in discussing something that doesn't come under

his ministry, I would like to establish my credentials of dealing with

this subject under this ministry. It's based on a report that was filed

with this House in 1982 by Evan Wolfe, the predecessor of the present

Provincial Secretary. It's called "Developing a Pension Policy for the

Future." I would like to....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Heaven forbid if you're going to talk about pensions.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I'm going to talk on pensions for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Minister. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has been recognized by the Chair.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to establish the credentials of

this. In the news release issued by the present minister's predecessor,

he stated: "The purpose of this paper is to stimulate public discussion

and provide input to government in this most important area. In tabling

the paper, the government is following through on a commitment made in

the throne speech at the start of the current session of the

Legislature."

Just to refresh the minister's memory, that was the throne speech of

1982, which was the throne speech prior to the 1983 election. Maybe

that particular

section was in the throne speech at that time as an

election gimmick. Maybe this "Developing a Pension Policy for the

Future" was a game presented to this House as an election gimmick. That

may be something that I am not aware of.

But I am aware that since that date there has been nothing from the

present minister or the government to establish something that should

have been established 50 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago. Often

the good things that should have taken place never took place, and if

we wait, we can't go back to the 30 or 40 years ago; all we can do is

start today, because tomorrow may be too late. This is something that I

have spoken on on many occasions in this House, that one of the things

we do need in British Columbia is the complete portable pension. The

greatest creator of employment is the small business community, those

who are working in construction, those working in jobs that may last

six months, six years. It is so important.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's your position on mandatory retirement?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I find that little man over there is being very obstructive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continue on the estimates for the minister, vote 60.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I think it's so important that we

in this Legislature realize that out in the real world there are a

large group of British Columbians who do not have the pleasure that the

present minister has of collecting 4 or 5 percent of his salary times

the number of years he has sat in this House, plus the pensions he may

have accumulated in his last place of employment. A lot of people work

all their lives in jobs that if they had an opportunity to develop a

stake in a pension plan of some sort, when they came to that magical

age of 65 that the minister makes fun of, they would have an

opportunity to retire in dignity. But we have an inadequate Canada

Pension Plan that has a very minimum pension after a lifetime of

employment. We have a right-wing Conservative government that's trying

to cut even that back by failing to index completely the old-age

pension and the Canada pension. People build up in the retirement

pension a share of the money that they earned in various forms of

employment. It's not important if a person works for six months or six

years, but every day that a person works in any form of employment he

should have an opportunity to put in his contributions. He should also

have an opportunity for the

[ Page 6623 ]

employer that he's working for to put in a similar contribution, and

that contribution should be locked into a pension plan for when he

reaches that magical age of retirement, whenever it is.

The government made it a major issue in the throne speech in 1982:

that they were going to develop a pension policy for British Columbia.

They talked in glowing terms of pension portability and brought out a

policy paper on various types of pension plans that may be instituted.

I'm not saying they should necessarily be under the provincial pension

plan, or that they should be private or federal, but there must be an

approach by the government — by every one of us in the Legislature — to

provide an opportunity for a person. When he goes to work for

McDonald's at age 16, or if he carries on through other jobs in mills

or construction or retail stores, every day that he works, every

employer he works for and as he moves from one job to another, his

contribution and that of his employer is building up, so that when he

reaches that magical age he is able to receive a pension based on the

amount of money he's put into it, or based on the best four years of

his wages, like we enjoy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, the Chair is having considerable difficulty

relating the argument to the minister's responsibilities with respect to

government and Crown corporation employees. Possibly the debate is more relevant

to a throne speech or overall budget debate rather than within the estimates.

If the member can relate it to the minister's administrative functions,

it obviously would then be appropriate.

MR. MITCHELL: That is why, Mr. Chairman, I attempted to

establish my credibility by referring to the policy paper that was

filed in this House by a previous Provincial Secretary, Evan Wolfe, in

1982. This was his policy under this estimate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will appreciate that the hon. member

that filed that policy is no longer the Provincial Secretary. We are

dealing with the estimates of the years 1985-86. Would the member

please continue.

MR. MITCHELL: What I'm dealing with is the policy that should

be coming out of that minister's office to follow up what his

predecessor filed in this House, based on his

interpretation of what

was promised in the throne speech of 1982. I'm saying that the present

minister has failed miserably in his position; that he has not given

leadership in the cabinet. He has not given leadership in this House.

He has not given the leadership to follow through with the promise that

was made in 1982, that came out of a policy of Evan Wolfe. He has done

absolutely nothing.

I'm sorry that the minister decided that he would leave the House and is

not going to be here to give a reasonable answer for what the government's

policy is. What is his ministry's policy? He's only looking after one

ministry: that is, Provincial Secretary, a ministry that should be giving some

leadership, at least to follow up on what was promised back in 1982. As I say,

I'm sorry that the government is not looking ahead in British Columbia.

We have gone from one disaster to another. We have failed to make any long-range

plans, and we're having this problem.... It's been recognized by

the federal government. They have their deficits, and they are cutting back

on people who have worked all their life — cutting back on their pensions. I

know that is not in his particular ministry.

I'm happy that the minister is back in the House, Mr. Chairman. Now

we can get back to discussing it in detail. We had a hard time, Mr.

Minister, covering the important parts of it when you were not in the

House to give some input. The Chairman did his best to keep it defused

so we could fill in the time.

What I have asked.... And I will repeat for your hearing, now

that you are back. The government has failed to give any leadership;

they have failed to make any statements since the throne speech in 1982

or the policy papers that were filed in 1982. I think it's important,

if we are going to establish some type of pension, that the government

should either give it some serious thought, or say: "Yes, we brought it

out in 1982 because it was an election gimmick that was taking place in

the election of 1983." If that is the policy, fine; get up and say it.

But if there is a need.... Let's remember that there are still 70

percent of the people in B.C. working; 70 percent are out there every

day contributing to the betterment of British Columbia. Every day there

are hundreds and thousands of them moving from one job to another,

and every day they are failing to establish some financial security for

their future. The opportunity is not there, because this little

minister has not given us any direction.

I seriously recommend again to the minister that he set up one of

our parliamentary committees to study the need for portable pensions,

and go out and meet not only the trade union movement but the insurance

companies and those who are involved in putting pension packages

together. Go out and ask the people of British Columbia: do they want

to participate and invest in their future? Do they want to have that

opportunity — that when they move from one job to the other they not

only are taking their potential contribution, but the opportunity must

be there for them to also take with them the employer's contribution,

so that when they reach later years in life they are going to be able

to have something to fall back on? If we don't make that stand, if we

don't take that position now.... Every day we leave it and every

day we say that there is some other problem.... It's a problem that

those who follow us in this House are going to be faced with.

[3:45]

Again, I'm sorry that the minister hasn't given any direction,

hasn't made any statement on it. I ask him at this point: has he

considered it since he has taken over that position? Has he studied the

policy papers that were filed? Does his ministry have any

recommendation to the government for establishing some parliamentary

committee or some followup committee to the papers that were filed here?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think the

member is referring to the Green Paper on pensions. There was a

document released by my predecessor on the issue of pensions a few

years ago. I hope that the member doesn't jump to conclusions that the

formulating of a pension policy is something that can be done

overnight. The member makes reference to my pension position and so

forth.

That reminds me of when I was in opposition. We had a Minister of

Mines in the socialist government between 1972 and 1975 who was

bringing in onerous royalties and penalties against the mining

industry, killing mining jobs in British Columbia. I told him at that

particular time: "Mr. Minister," — I couldn't call him Mr. Nimsick

then; it was Mr. Minister — "you know, it's fine for you to kill all

these mining jobs in

[ Page 6624 ]

British Columbia, because you are comfortable. You qualify for the

old age security, and you are receiving the old age security from the

federal government, because you're over age 65."

I indicated to him that he had a pension from Cominco for having

worked for them for 35 years as well, and that he was also eligible,

once he took his retirement from his cabinet position, for a handsome

pension for having been a member of this House as well. So here was a

member who had three pensions and was in the process of killing

virtually every mining job in this province. So I hope you don't raise

these issues in comparison to other people's pension positions.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You know, I threw a very serious question

across to the member as he was speaking. He wants to shilly-shally away

from the question. He didn't want to respond. I asked the member what

his views were on the issue of compulsory retirement. Does he believe

in compulsory retirement at age 65, or age 60, or any other age? What's

his position on compulsory retirement? It's not an easy question, but

the member must have some kind of opinion on that issue. I think he

should express it. I don't want you to express your trade union point

of view; I just want you to express your personal point of view from

the bottom of your heart.

On the issue of pensions, I don't think that.... We've had

substantial public input on the issue of pension in British Columbia —

vesting, portability, and all those other issues. We've had a lot of

input since 1982, since the Green Paper was issued. It's a very complex

subject, and then there are differing points of view as well. I've

discussed the issue with actuaries. Since I've been in the ministry,

we've had two or maybe three provincial ministers responsible for

pension conferences in eastern Canada, where we sat down and discussed

this issue of pensions, which is a very complex issue. We weren't able

to reach a consensus on the issue of pensions at those conferences.

I know that there will be a meeting in the not too distant future,

more than likely a federal-provincial conference on the issue of

pensions. I propose to give an update to cabinet on where we stand and

what the outstanding issues are vis-à-vis pensions in British Columbia

in the not too distant future, in the weeks ahead.

It isn't that we have forgotten a paper that was put forward by my

predecessor; it's just the fact that it's not that easy to reach a

consensus, and it takes some time, but we're actively pursuing it.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to thank you. The minister did get

serious near the end. He started off with his attack on someone who is

not here to defend himself — a personal attack. I've heard of snow jobs

and I've heard of smokescreens, but I guess what we really had there

was a pea soup fog.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh! Racist statement.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I take

exception to the member making reference to me as a pea-souper, or a

pea soup frog, just because I'm a French Canadian. I think he should

withdraw that racist remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member intended....

MR. MITCHELL: I didn't say a pea soup frog; I said a pea soup fog. If he takes that as racist, I withdraw it.

You don't take a serious subject like this and attack somebody

because he had a pension that he worked for at Cominco. He earned every

pension nickel he got out of Cominco. Just living in that country you

earn that pension. Everyone who works at Cominco earns every cent he

gets in pension. I don't care if it was the MLA who worked there; he

earned that pension. You don't attack him because he has a pension. You

don't attack him because he happens to live in Canada, reaches the

magical age of 65 and qualifies for a pension, any more than I attack

you because you have spent your 20-odd years in this House. You've

earned every cent of a pension you're going to get, and any other

pension investments you may have accumulated.

What I am saying is that every British Columbian, no matter where he

works, should have an opportunity to build up something in the same way

as the previous Minister of Mines whom you were attacking. You or any

one of us have had the opportunity because we've been in the right

places at the right times. That's all I'm saying. I'm not condemning

you or anyone else. I say that all British Columbians should have that

same right that we are going to enjoy.

You ask me what my position is on compulsory retirement at 65. I

have no problem giving you my position. I think that we in government,

and in the community, must have a flexible position on retirement at

65. I think that maybe it should be 60. I spent 25 years, hoping to

retire at 55. So I believe that there are times in everyone's

life....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I worked it, and if I could have retired

at 55, I would have been enjoying my retirement at 55. But it didn't

happen. So I'm here.

I remember many constituency problems I had with the UIC and

unemployment insurance. In one particular plant there was a father of

60. His son, who was in his twenties, was married and had a mortgage.

Because the son had less seniority, he had to be laid off, and the

father had to stay on. I say that it's better to put that man on early

retirement. In that particular case the father wanted to go on

unemployment insurance so his son could continue to work. I think that

we have to look at making sure there are jobs available for the youth

of this province. If it means earlier retirement — I don't say it

should be compulsory, but there should be the opportunity for those who

want to retire at 55, 60 or 62.... If there is some type of pension

portability, if there is some flexibility, without everything being

written in stone, then a person.... For everyone who wants to fight

for retirement at 65, there are many who would like to retire at 62.

There are certain occupations in which a person shouldn't be on the

job at 60. I happened to be in one, before being elected, where it was

mandatory that you retire at 60. But those who worked on the job

realized that foot policemen should not be on the job after 55. There

are types of occupations like that, where it should be built into the

system that they pay more into it, and that the employer pay more into

it, so that when they reach that age when they are really not

[ Page

6625 ]

capable of doing a proper job, they have an opportunity to take a

pension and either do some of the many part-time jobs or enjoy the

money.

I have no hesitation in saying that I am not opposed to mandatory

retirement at 65. I think something should be built in whereby one can

retire earlier. You asked me my personal position. That is my personal

position. If you want to take that and smear it as some kind of biased

anglophone opinion, you can do it. I'm a white-haired anglophone, and I

don't hesitate to say that. But if the government has some intention of

doing something, involve not only the bureaucrats at the top, not only

the ministers and not only travelling back and forth to Ottawa, you

know.... Why, you spend your $18,000 in travel.... If you're

going to accomplish something, if you're going out there and going to

accomplish something, fine. But also involve those who are going to

benefit, those who are in need, those in the workforce, those employers

who want to make some preparation for their employees. Involve the

people in the community, and don't be afraid to go out and ask

questions.

The problem is there. Identify it, and listen to some of the

suggestions. You may have trouble getting a consensus from the

ministers, because they come and go. They're here today, and they're

gone tomorrow. We have a new minister in the Provincial Secretary's

position, but the problem is still there. The problem is not being

faced, and this government, though they promised it before the last

election, have really not done anything but travel back and forth and

made a few little remarks which I think are out of place.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just am not too clear on the member's

response to my question on mandatory retirement. What are your views

about an individual who might want to work until age 70 or 75? There

could be a great variety of circumstances where an individual who might

have a young family or a family in university and needs additional

income....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster rises on a point of order.

[4:00]

MR. COCKE: It's not the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's

estimates that we're discussing at the moment. I wonder if the minister

could defend his own and not ask questions of the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I'll accept that point of view, but

really the member was suggesting that there's a need for additional

input into this Green Paper on pensions. So I was just attempting to

secure his point of view about an individual who might want to work

beyond what is now deemed to be mandatory retirement age, 65.

MR. COCKE: Would you like mine? Because we could go all afternoon.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I don't want yours. I'm asking his. If a guy wants to work until 70 or 75....

MR. MITCHELL: The minister wasn't listening when I gave him my answer.

I said that the retirement age must have built-in flexibility, and if a person

wants to retire early, then that opportunity should be there. It should be built

in. If the man wants to go to 70 because he has a young family, then let him

go, providing — and I say providing — that he is capable of doing that job.

What I said was that there are certain policemen who should not be on the road

at 60. So that is my position.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I very much appreciate the point of view

expressed by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, which suggests that

he's not in favour of mandatory retirement and that there should be

some flexibility. I very much appreciate his expression of opinion on

that issue.

MR. HANSON: I have a question of the minister. Earlier this

year a letter was sent to all employees of government and all

pensioners, people that had previously worked for the government, for

the province, and my understanding is that a similar letter is going

out to all the teachers, inviting them to purchase Expo tickets. The

government employees were invited to involve themselves in some kind of

a payroll deduction process. Now I don't think we have any objections

to that at all. My question is about the government employees

themselves, who asked for a similar payroll checkoff for their own

people on a volunteer basis to make a payroll deduction to support the

unemployment action centres in the province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've already answered those questions.

MR. HANSON: Well, as the debate leader on your ministry, I would like to ask you myself why you had an objection to that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a question from the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) this morning on that same issue of food

banks, I gave the answers. I guess if you really want the answers, the

Blues are available. Maybe I can get the Blues sent over to you; then

you'll have the information. I don't think it's necessary that I should

start repeating myself on this particular issue, when I've clearly

expounded on the reasons why we're not able to accommodate that

particular request from the BCGEU. We're attempting to respond to the

B.C. Federation of Labour's request for various trade unions in the

province to garner these funds. I gave a very comprehensive response

this morning on the difficulties we have with the computers in

attempting to accommodate that particular request, because all the

spaces on the computer are fully occupied. I indicated that the

computers involved, the computers within the Ministry of Finance for

payroll purposes, are not computers that are in the Ministry of

Provincial Secretary. I gave a very elaborate and thorough response to

that question this morning.

MR. HANSON: It is ironic that there was enough space on the

computer program for payroll deductions for Expo tickets, but not to

make some compassionate donation to volunteer organizations such as the

unemployment action centres.

[Mr. Veitch in the Chair.]

However, in view of the minister's extravagant advertising and

propaganda budget, increased in the government information services by

$2 million — from $18 million to over $20 million — in this year at a

time when the people of this province are in the depths of a Socred

depression, and the fact that the government polls extensively and uses

tax dollars for

[ Page 6626 ]

polling without any disclosure of the questionnaires or the results,

in fact without any disclosure whatsoever to the public for these

expenditures, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move a motion that vote 60,

Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government Services' salary, be

reduced by $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please forward the motion to the Chair.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Speaking to the motion, if the motion's in order.... I just want to clarify that point first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will examine the motion for a moment, please.

It appears to the Chair that the motion is in order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would first of all like to once again

identify the projected expenditures in the government information

services for the edification of the members opposite. I've been able to

put to rest many of the erroneous statements that they've brought

forward to the House during the debates of my estimates. They've

brought some great revelations to this Assembly on preapprovals of the

budget for government information services. Oh, there was a very

serious diversion of normal procedures as far as government information

services are concerned. I identified for that little opposition over

there that this was a natural procedure that had been in place since

1981 and that is not applicable only to government information

services, but applies to all ministries of government. After that

member from Victoria had been toying around with this particular

subject that there was something devious, something sinister about

preapprovals of the budget of government information services, he

attempted to make this great revelation at the Public Accounts

Committee time and time again and was unsuccessful. Then he brought his

revelation to this House. Then he was shot down; he didn't have a

revelation after all, and it was just a natural process from Treasury

Board that had been in place since 1981. Lo and behold, the argument

and the big build-up which that little member from Victoria had had

been shot down because preapproval has been a directive from Treasury

Board since 1981 and the controls on those expenditures, and the

regulations dealing with the controls, are issued by the

comptroller-general and are public information.

Now we also heard a great revelation from the little member for New

Westminster, who thought that the Provincial Secretary should resign

because he'd picked up a voucher in Public Accounts that revealed that

there had been money expended — $78,000 — for advertising for the

Social Credit Party just before the election of 1983. He had a great

revelation. He brought it here. The member should resign. "I want you

to know," he says, "I've just found out that that Social Credit Party

was using government information services taxpayers' money out of the

advertising budget for the purpose of political advertising just before

the election of May 1983. I brought the answers back that really reveal

that these funds were allocated for tourism, for TV advertising,

wherein the bulk of that money was spent in the provinces of Alberta

and Ontario.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is absolute nonsense. They were not advertised

through Maclean's and whatever other magazine you were referring to. Absolute

nonsense.

So these little members over here who had great revelations about

the advertising budget and how it's being used and abused, and how

there are sinister goings-on in government vis-à-vis the advertising

budget, were completely demolished with their false and inappropriate

stories. Oh, how those guys across the way have been wronged, Mr.

Chairman. And then, oh, they had some great revelations. There should

be an inquiry about bingo operations in British Columbia. The member

for Nanaimo put to rest all the concerns and the requests for inquiries

that have been made by the member for North Okanagan when he said there

was no need for an inquiry in this province, and there's nothing wrong

with competition in bingo halls in B.C.

They have not succeeded. They've shown how divided those socialists

are on certain issues. How do they ever expect to face the people, the

electorate of this province, in the kind of divided and ununified

means which they're in right now? It's absolutely appalling. What was

once a noble and straightforward political party in this province we

see today in absolute shambles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A political party that has no principles; it

doesn't know where it stands from day to day. That's what the

socialists stand for, Mr. Chairman — shambles.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to repeat for the members of the opposition

just where the money goes. They're a little upset; they just haven't

been able to get any media coverage from these four sessions of the

debates under the Provincial Secretary's ministry. They haven't

succeeded in getting any ink in the newspapers, so they have to bring

in a little motion. They've got to do something dramatic to get a

little bit of media attention, which they haven't been able to get. So

they're going to attempt something dramatic. I'm just going to tell

those members again, for their own information, where the money goes

from government information services.

First of all, government information services is responsible for the

advertising of various ministries of government, and I'm not going to

tell you all the various objects. I've already told you that the

Attorney-General's ministry has to do advertising for the law reform

commission, publications of reports and working papers, Counterattack

and traffic safety, reports on boards and commissions. That's why some

of this advertising budget is for that particular ministry. But the

dollar allocation.... You people have been attempting to create

suspicion and a false image in the minds of the people about the

advertising budget; that it's being misused, that it's being used for

political purposes. I've proven how wrong you are.

[4:15]

Allocated for the Agriculture and Food Ministry, $487,000;

Attorney-General's ministry, $540,000; Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

$63,000; Education, $819,000; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources,

$367,000; Environment, $382,000; Finance, $192,000; Forests, $393,000;

Health, $827,000; Human Resources, $130,000; Industry and Small

Business Development, $500,000; IGR, $14,000; International Trade and

Investment, $500,000; Labour, $568,000; Lands, Parks and Housing,

$979,000; Municipal Affairs, $26,000; Provincial Secretary and Ministry

of Government Services, $248,000;

[ Page

6627 ]

Transportation and Highways, $287,000; Universities, Science and

Communications, $155,000; GIS, $529,000; Tourism, $9,100,000, for a

total of $17,106,000. The increase this year is the result of an

additional $1.5 million assigned to Tourism for Expo, $300,000 for

Counterattack and traffic safety, and the establishment of a new

ministry, International Trade and Investment, $400,000. That's the

reason for the increase and projected expenditures from GIS this year.

I wonder which part of these projected expenditures the opposition

thinks should be cut. A lot of these projected expenditures are

mandatory in nature; they're statutory in nature. There's an obligation

on the part of the Crown because of legislation to do some of this

advertising. Also, there are the salaries and benefits. There are

people who work in GIS, $1, 957, 969; the occupancy charge for GIS is

$300,000; processing, office expenses and travel, etc., is $195,000;

professional services is $870,000 — which is the makeup of the budget

for government information services this year.

So, Mr. Speaker, the opposition, in their long-winded so-called

attack, have been shallow indeed, shallow not only today, but shallow

for the last four sessions of these estimates. I've never seen such a

shabby and shallow opposition as I've witnessed this year in this

chamber. They're to be pitied for their shabbiness and their

shallowness.

MR. HANSON: What that minister doesn't want the public of

this province to know is that under $2 million of the total advertising

budget is for statutory advertising; the other $18 million is for what

they call "informational" advertising. Propaganda. When all of the

estimates of this Legislature are restrained, when the Education

estimates are restrained, when the Health budgets are restrained, when

the social services of this province are cut and restrained because of

the bankrupt economic policies of this government, and the information

and advertising budget increases by almost 10 percent, from $18 million

to over $20 million; when the polling takes place at an average of a

quarter of a million dollars a year without any disclosure, without any

proper reporting procedure; when vouchers are buried and hidden in

piles over in the Douglas building in Finance....

That's why we're moving this motion to reduce that member's salary

by a dollar. You have no right during a depression to increase

advertising and propaganda when people need employment. They need

candour. They don't need imaging. They don't need Hollywood fixers.

They want an honest and forthright government. You should be cutting

back in that advertising budget, not expanding it. Every single

household in the province is paying $22 towards government advertising;

that's within the provincial government itself. They would rather have

that $22 spent on something else. They don't need those phoney little

news stories on BCTV when the news is on.

They like to refer back to the NDP days, when the advertising budget

was $5 million dollars; now it's over $20 million within the

government, $25 million for Expo, and we hear it's even larger now with

the new advertising contract to Vrlak Robinson. I hear that's a biggie.

We don't have the exact number, but we hear it's a very big advertising

budget.

There isn't any money for increasing social assistance rates, but

there's lots of extra money for advertising. That is the reason for the

motion. Mr. Chairman, we urge that you call the vote on this motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that vote 60, the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Service's salary, shall be reduced by $1.

Motion negatived on the following division:

NAYS — 22

Waterland

Brummet

Segarty

Heinrich

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

Fraser

Parks

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

McGeer

Davis

Mowat

Reid

Ree

Reynolds

YEAS — 16

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

Passarell

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

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we have two mighty women in our

gallery today. I'd like the committee to welcome Shannon O'Neal and

Corliss Miller.

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

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure

to introduce Mr. Ashton, a teacher from Harold Bishop Elementary

School, and the classes of elementary students that are in the audience

in the House today from sunny Surrey.

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

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like the House to welcome Mr. John Gregory,

from my constituency, who is also on the board at Capilano College and

works for CJVB radio in Vancouver.

Vote 60 approved.

Vote 61: ministry operations, $60,464,576 — approved.

Vote 62: government information services, $20,428,969 — approved.

Vote 63: pensions and employee benefits administration, $10 — approved.

[ Page 6628 ]

Vote 64: pensions and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 43, Mr. Speaker.

LOTTERY CORPORATION ACT

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly indeed pleased to

rise and speak to second reading of the British Columbia Lottery

Corporation Act. This act formally establishes a Crown corporation that

has already generated jobs and other benefits in British Columbia, and

has become one of our leading corporate citizens. I would like to

explain how and why we came to establish this Crown corporation, and

how, since its inception, it has moved to the leading edge of lottery

technology in the world.

[4:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In 1974 Canada's four western provinces formed the Western Canada

Lottery Foundation and agreed in writing that the head office would be

located in Winnipeg for the first ten years. As the lottery business

grew, the centre of sales shifted to British Columbia. The people of

this province provided more than 50 percent of the WCLF's business and

paid more than 50 percent of the administrative and staff costs. By

1984 the business was employing 150 people in its Winnipeg head office,

and it seemed logical at the end of the ten-year agreement that the

head office, its staff positions and its payroll should move closer to

the centre of retail sales.

British Columbia made this suggestion to the other Western provinces

in 1982 to give ample time for discussion and consideration. By July

1984, however, when the agreement had expired, no decision had yet been

reached. We then proceeded to establish our own lottery corporation and

employ British Columbians to run it.

After careful consideration of all the options, Kamloops was chosen

as the site for the corporation headquarters. Kamloops is a centrally

located city with moderate commercial rents and a promising future.

Locating the lottery head office there has given the city a boost. It

has brought 130 new jobs and a substantial payroll to the city. It has

brought upgraded telecommunications to the central interior and the

potential for many spinoff benefits. The newly renovated Seymour Street

building that houses the corporation and its state-of-the-art data

centre, has, as one newspaper stated, "added a touch of class to the

downtown core." Approximately $4 million was spent on refinishing the

building, with union and non-union firms working side by side to meet

very demanding deadlines.

Of the 130 staff now employed by the corporation, only three are from out of

province. Included in those three is Mr. Guy Simonis, an internationally recognized

leader in the field of lottery administration who left the Western Canada Lottery

Foundation to head our corporation. Under Mr. Simonis's guidance the corporation

has purchased and installed a sophisticated computer network that is built to

the very latest technological specifications. Its software, especially its management

information systems, is the most advanced in its field and has already brought

inquiries from as far away as Singapore. We are optimistic that a substantial

market for our software is beginning to open up.

In the U.S. congressional elections last year, four more states

passed initiatives to establish state lotteries. This brings to 18 the

number of states with legal lotteries. These jurisdictions more often

than not look to other governments for consultation in setting up

secure lottery systems. The expertise, the reputation and the systems

established in this province put us in a leading position in the

international lottery market.

Although the secure and efficient administration of lotteries in

British Columbia was our first priority in establishing this

corporation, we have a secondary objective: to be self-sufficient in

the lottery business and a major supplier of lottery technology to the

world. In this connection we're pursuing the establishment of a

ticket-printing business in Kamloops, which will result in many more

jobs for that city, and a plant to assemble terminals. We are confident

we can penetrate the American market with this expertise as well as

with our specialized management information systems.

I think it is important to recognize that this bill does not deal

with the spending of lottery funds. The BCLC is in the business of

lotteries. It raises revenue for government. The Lottery Corporation

does not spend the money it raises. The spending of lottery revenue on

culture, sport, heritage, health care research and so on comes under

another piece of legislation, the Lottery Act.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, all British Columbians will benefit from

the business the British Columbia Lottery Corporation performs, and I'm

proud to have played a

part in establishing the BCLC. I move second

reading.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we will not be supporting this

legislation, because it fails to address the very real problem of the

politically partisan distribution of lottery proceeds in this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member has

a prepared speech, and obviously he wasn't aware that we have a lottery

corporation which looks after the expenditure of lottery revenue. This

bill merely sets up the corporation, as I said in my opening remarks.

It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the projected expenditures

of the revenue derived from the Lottery Corporation. All this does is

put in place the management and director structure for the operation of

the Lottery Corporation. It has nothing to do with the Lottery Act,

which is responsible for the expenditure of funds.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the point of order,

which is well in order. However, the Chair does extend some leeway to a

member in developing his debate — which in all likelihood will become

relevant to the bill.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in this bill, as the minister is

fully aware, there is provision for the deletion of a

section of the

act that he's referring to, the one which handles the disbursement,

substituting language which will allow this minister to spend or

disburse the funds in any manner he considers in the public interest.

It has long been our contention that lottery funds have a potential for

abuse when they are distributed by politicians. The proceeds, after

operating expenses and so on have been paid for — the funds which go

[ Page 6629 ]

under the provisions of the other piece of legislation referred to

by the minister.... Under this bill the minister has the authority

to spend that money in any manner he deems to be in the public

interest. We feel that the potential has long been demonstrated in the

disbursement of lottery grants and funds that they are inequitable, and

they will always be inequitable when they are entirely in the hands of

a politician. It is incorrect and wrong for the minister to be

presiding over the disbursement of the lottery grants. There should be

an advisory board, which was originally called for in the legislation

and never ever complied with. There is a provision under the existing

statute that allows for the establishment of an advisory council or an

advisory board that would be a check on the government in their

disbursement of these funds.

When we look at where the funds go, oftentimes we see that they are

going into ridings where the Socred margin is extremely small, and

there appears to be no justification for that kind of allocation. Also

we have long asked for a full disclosure pointing out the applications

that were turned down, because it's not good enough to just include a

list of grants made. We must know who the unsuccessful applicants are

and why they were turned down.

Mr. Speaker, another point of contention that we certainly don't

approve of is that this then moves the lottery disbursement process as

established under a Crown corporation further away from the scrutiny of

the Legislature. That is a real problem, because at one point we had a

Crown corporations reporting committee with a small staff — a very

small and competent staff — administered in this House. The member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) chaired that committee and sat with members of this

House to examine the Crown corporations, whether it was B.C. Ferries,

B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail. In this instance they would be able to examine

the B.C. Lottery Corporation. But no such body exists now, Mr. Speaker.

This act removes the lottery apparatus in operation outside the

scrutiny of this House. It is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, because

there are no provisions that provide any kind of check or balance on

the kind of political disbursement which I've previously mentioned and

which is of concern not only to members of this House but to the public

at large.

When people buy lottery tickets, they buy them for various reasons.

One is that they want to have the opportunity to win a prize, but they

also know that when they don't win, the proceeds that go to the Crown

are to be used for meritorious projects, for recreational or cultural

projects. There is no such language or criteria in this bill, although

some language does exist within the Lottery Act, which says: "cultural,

recreational and any matters deemed by the minister to be meritorious

in the public interest." We don't like the political interference in

the disbursement of lottery funds. It's got to be moved away from

politicians if it's to be disbursed fairly. That is our objection, Mr.

Speaker. We will be voting against this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to reiterate what my colleague has

said on this bill. Certainly

section 12 of the bill deals specifically

with amendments to the Lottery Act, which the minister tried to

indicate weren't part of this act. He indicated that this money was

just going to be turned over to the Lottery Fund, but he didn't mention

that

section 12 amends that Lottery Act. What it does is....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, yes. It takes it out of the hands

of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation, which was where those

decisions were made previously, and it specified, as my colleague has

said, certain things: the cultural heritage of the province, or for any

other purpose consistent with the objectives of that Western Canada

Lottery Foundation. He has now seen fit to withdraw from the Western

Canada Lottery Foundation and establish his own lottery.

What you're doing is putting it all in your own hands, so you make

the decisions. That is just altogether too much politics. We've had

example after example, and the figures have shown it very clearly, of

the tendency to use those funds for purposes — even as it was — that

were not really consistent with the objectives of the foundation and

were certainly more consistent with some partisan political

schedule

that that minister had in the back of his mind, or that government had.

And what we're doing now is putting it strictly in his hands, no

comeback. It's removed from the Legislature, and he is going to make

those decisions. He's going to decide how much Columbia River is going

to get and which society is going to get what, and how much

Cowichan-Malahat is going to get. It has nothing to do....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: They're gone, because that Western Canada Lottery Foundation was the body that set the objectives.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, not true.

MRS. WALLACE: There they are. The objectives of that....

That's the direction they went, and what you're doing now is putting it

right into your hands. Whatever the minister considers to be in the

public interest.... I would suggest that what that minister

considers to be in the public interest and what the people of the

province of British Columbia might consider to be in the public

interest would be two different things.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Oh, did

you want to say something? I don't know how we.... What's the

procedure now that I've been recognized?

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to start ruling for the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The procedure would be to have leave. Would

leave be given for the first member for Vancouver Centre to speak on

second reading to Bill 43?

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I must associate myself with the first member for

Victoria and the member for Cowichan-Malahat regarding the possibility

of abuse associated with this new initiative by the government to

really take over a very lucrative enterprise. I certainly can see the

need to streamline the operation, handling and management of lotteries,

but I don't feel this piece of legislation is any assurance that the

abuse and the waste will not be even greater than what the government

is trying to overcome.

[ Page 6630 ]

It talks about the schemes that the board of directors will now be

able to embark upon to do with lotteries, and those are really not

limited. The term "scheme" is really quite broad, and they may find

some way to bring one-armed bandits in before we know it under this.

You know, it's not really a limiting

section at all. It was

suggested earlier that the government had a hidden agenda that might

one day see gambling become legalized in the province, and everyone on

that side of the House is protesting, saying that that's ridiculous and

there's no way possible that that could happen because it would require

an amendment to the Criminal Code, and they go on and on and on. But

this piece of legislation could, in fact, be a very clever way of

achieving the same objective on the provincial level, notwithstanding

any federal situation or federal statutes.

Section 8 is really the

section that concerns me. The

section reads: "The net profits...."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Net profits.

Section 8.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the Provincial Secretary rising on a point of order?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right. I think, you know, he

apparently wants to discuss this

section by section. If he wants to

discuss it

section by section, let's pass second reading, let's get

leave, and go into it

section by section. How about that?

MR. BARNES: I accept your criticism, and I won't make

reference to the section. I'll just say that one of the most important

objects in this whole statute, one of the principles that bothers me,

is the idea that net proceeds will go to the Lottery Fund, to be

administered by the Lottery Act. That's the part that concerns me the

most. The Lottery Corporation is going to become the go-between. That's

the problem. It reminds me of the days, you know, when we saw how

effective the B.C. Petroleum Corporation was able to operate. You just

take your cut.

You know what the miners wanted to do in the 1950s — the explorers of

minerals and resources. They said, "Look, after expenses we'll be glad

to pay a royalty. We have no objection to paying our fair share, but

let us take care of out costs." Now this thing is talking about passing

on the net. In other words, if there are going to be any profits after

expenses, after administrative costs, after prize money, then we will

turn that over to the lotteries people to disburse in the way in which

they've democratically and fairly, without any political

involvement....

But I'm concerned about there being no limit on what the government

will need, what that board of directors will need, to operate. Why

don't you have a

section in there that says: "Notwithstanding anything

we have said about net profits, there is going to be a maximum which we

will use of the gross"? If you're going to get $100 million, let's say,

we will take no more than United Appeal, for instance, takes to run its

affairs. It goes out and raises several hundreds of millions of

dollars, and it operates on anywhere between 5 percent and 10 percent

for costs, for staff, for promotions and for all of those things.

Is the minister saying that they will keep the costs down on this thing? Or

are we going to find the situation where about 75 percent of the thing is going

out to operate? There is a loophole in this thing. This is a dangerous situation

we're getting into, where the politicians are going to have an opportunity

to determine what the cost will be and the opportunity to engage friends and

all kinds of scenarios.

It's not something that we can support, because it doesn't appear as

though the government is concerned about raising revenue for those

worthy causes that the lotteries were brought in place in the first

place for. If they did, then they would amend this thing to put some

restraint on themselves, the same as they have restrained everybody

else, like the various school boards in this province. They should

restrain this act. This is a dangerous piece of legislation. I am

suggesting that unless there are guidelines drawn in legislation to

protect those funds, we're going to have problems in the future. I

certainly would be opposed to it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In closing debate, I just want to suggest

that the member for Cowichan seems to be a little confused about the

consequential amendment to

section 12 of the act. Essentially all it's

doing is removing the language which included the Western Canada

Lottery Foundation in the Lottery Act and also allowing us to have some

flexibility on expenditures of lottery funds. It goes on to remove the

Western Canada Lottery Foundation, which, incidentally, had no

jurisdiction whatsoever as to the expenditure of funds within British

Columbia or any other province.

Maybe I shouldn't make the point; she's not that interested in

hearing it. But anyway, adding "the minister considers to be in the

public interest" allows, of course, flexibility beyond the realm of

recreational or cultural heritage of the province.

The member for Vancouver Centre raises the issue of the potential

costs and how the costs could probably overcome the potential of a

profit of the corporation. I want to say that we have no criteria as to

the operating costs of our Lottery Corporation, because it's been in

place for such a short period of time. It was only established on April

1 of this year. We won't be able to measure its operating costs

vis-à-vis other lottery corporations in this country or elsewhere until

we've been functioning for at least a year. But we'll know then about

our operating costs, and I want to assure you that I'm one who believes

in having the minimum amount of operating costs in place.

Our distribution costs. We know full well that we were the most

cost-effective distributors of lottery product in this country. There

was no other lottery corporation in this country that had such an

efficient and cost-effective lottery distribution system as we had in

British Columbia.

We used the auspices of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation to do

that distribution, which many other organizations were not prepared to

do because of the fact they were fearful of losing their autonomy. But

we thought that it was important that we have the most efficient and

cost-effective distribution system in the country.

On the issue of the member being concerned about the board of

directors and the potential costs of the board of directors, I want to

say that really the board of directors is very small. The chairman of

the board, who happens to be the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Government Services, receives no salary for acting as the chairman of

the board.

The secretary of the corporation also serves at no fee. So it's the

most cost-effective board of directors of any corporation in the world,

in the whole world.

[ Page

6631 ]

Mr. Speaker, with those few words, I take great pleasure in moving second reading.

Motion approved on division.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forthwith?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you want it forthwith? No? I got a signal

from across the way, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Vancouver Centre

had suggested that he was prepared to discuss the thing

section by

section. I asked him if he was prepared to do it very shortly after the

second reading. He indicated very clearly that was the direction he

wanted it to go. So I put the question forthwith.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Your motion is that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MR. HOWARD: He needs leave to do that; he doesn't have it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 43, Lottery Corporation Act, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

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

The House in Committee of Supply: Mrs. Johnston in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 57: minister's office, $179,377.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, it seems to me

that the order of business was such that the opposition was ready to

debate the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith'

s) bills before we went

into Committee of Supply without any notice to us. It seems to me

inappropriate for us to be sitting at this time. I therefore move that

the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: It would appear that this is not a subject

for a point of order. The order of business is not for the committee.

Therefore I am not allowing the point of order.

Interjection.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The minister was recognized. You cannot make a motion on the point of order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Madam Chairman, it is a privilege to speak to these

estimates: 1985-86 will be my second full year as Minister of Municipal Affairs;

1984-85 was a year of significant accomplishments, and I look forward to even

bigger and better things in the new fiscal year.

[5:00]

My ministry continues to provide a full range of services to its

major client group, local government in British Columbia. Our client

base includes 144 municipalities, 28 regional districts and 322

improvement districts. For these hundreds of units we provide a wide

variety of administrative services, information and advice, grants, and

regulatory approvals. This extensive range of services is provided by a

dedicated and efficient staff. For 1985-86 the ministry will have an

FTE level of 94. Although this represents a measurable decline from the

level two years ago, both the quantity and the quality of ministry

services remain high.

Madam Chairman, Municipal Affairs is not a stagnant organization. I

have recently commissioned a team of consultants to review the

ministry's structure and performance. The goal of the consultants will

be to ascertain whether the ministry is fulfilling its statutory

mandate in the most effective and efficient manner possible. I can

assure this House that ministry staff look upon this management review

in a very positive manner. We are all on the lookout for opportunities

to improve our performance.

The existing structure on programs of the ministry are described in

our ministry annual reports, the most recent of which covers the 1983

calendar year. I expect to table the 1984 annual report in the very

near future.

Just as the ministry's structure and performance are under review,

so are its programs changing. Earlier this year I was proud to

introduce the provincial-municipal partnership program. This program

not only represents an exciting opportunity for stimulating economic

development at the local level but it also represents a striking

innovation in the type of services provided by this ministry to local

government.

As of today, Madam Chairman, 100 municipalities have expressed an

interest in the program. Those municipalities represent over 96 percent

of the total provincial population. Fourteen communities have already

signed the partnership agreement, which provides for property tax

relief as well as a variety of other economic development incentives.

Over 30 municipalities have made commitments, passed resolutions, to

sign partnership agreements and are awaiting the scheduling of signing

ceremonies.

During my relatively brief tenure as Minister o