1986 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8503 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Post-secondary education. Mr. Rose — 8504

Political statements by judiciary. Mr. Reynolds — 8504

Quesnel sexual assault case. Mr. Lauk — 8504

Queest Beach Holdings Ltd. road. Mr. Howard — 8505

Gasoline prices. Mr. D'Arcy — 8505

Ministerial Statement

Free trade negotiations. Hon. Mr. McGeer — 8506

Mr. Howard

Presenting Petitions — 8506

Oral Questions

Nuclear accidents. Hon. Mr. Gardom replies — 8507

Committee of Supply:

Ministry of Provincial Secretary

and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 65: minister's office — 8507

Mr. Hanson

Mr. MacWilliam

Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Ree

Mr. Reid

Mr. Williams

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Howard

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

Mr. D'Arcy

Tabling Documents — 8528

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to

welcome to the floor of the Legislature, with your concurrence, sir,

Hugh G. Ferguson. Hugh Ferguson is proceeding to retire from the public

service of the province of British Columbia after serving with the

government of B.C. for 37 years. Mr. Ferguson is a native of Victoria

who served with distinction in the RCAF during the Second World War. He

joined the British Columbia Department of Finance, as it was then

called, in 1949 after graduating from the University of British

Columbia with a bachelor of commerce degree. Over the years Hugh

Ferguson has worked in a variety of positions with the ministry, and

since 1982 has held the position of assistant deputy minister for the

provincial treasury. He retired from that post a few days ago, but

happily will remain with the ministry for several months yet in a

special consultancy role.

He has served with four Premiers and eight Ministers of Finance, and

he probably feels that's enough. Mr. Ferguson and his wife June, who is

in the gallery today, have two daughters, one son and three

grandchildren. Hugh Ferguson is truly one of the most dedicated and

outstanding public servants I have had the pleasure to know and work

with during my time in public life. Throughout his career he has shown

a dedication to all the people of British Columbia. He stands as an

excellent example to those who follow after him in the public service.

Would the House please welcome him.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say just a few words to

Hugh Ferguson. I might ask the other Hugh what he had in mind as to who

would be the next Minister of Finance, but I won't at this time.

Mr. Ferguson and I graduated from UBC on the same day. He joined the

Department of Finance, and I went on the same day to attend my very

first public meeting as a candidate for the CCF in Ganges. Our paths

went separately. When I was first elected in 1963 I very soon came to

know him as one of the top people in the Department of Finance, and of

course got to know the deputy as well. In those days, Mr. Speaker, and

for some time afterwards, people rose in the various departments in

part because of their dedication and the way in which they worked on

behalf of the public, rather than because of the political party that

they supported or the political whims of people who appointed them. It

was that way then, and still is to some extent.

With the minister, I certainly want to wish Hugh Ferguson all the

best in his "retirement" — in quotes, because I understand he will

still be making contributions to the public, working with the Ministry

of Finance from time to time. I wish him all the best, and a long

period of retirement.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in 1919 a remarkable group

of organizations got together to form an umbrella organization called

the Provincial Council of Women. The social services committee was very

pleased to receive a brief from the Provincial Council of Women today,

and I'd like to ask the House to welcome their newly elected president,

Mrs. Helen Tokarek, members of the provincial council executive and

some of their members not on the executive, who are in the gallery.

I am also pleased to ask the House to welcome some legislative

interns from Ontario. I know that all members, having been served so

well by our own legislative interns over the years, will welcome the

Ontario representatives and wish for them a very enjoyable, educational

and inspirational visit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's my pleasure today to introduce Chief Stan

Dixon of the Sechelt band and four elected council members. I ask the

House to join me in the welcome.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, a group of members from the Teachers'

Investment and Housing Cooperative met this noon hour with the Social

Credit caucus. I'd ask the House to join me and make welcome to our

precincts Alma McGauley of Castlegar, Neil Coen, Dennis Guest and

Doreen Coen of Vancouver, Alice Hayman from Richmond, Mary Timmons from

Burnaby, and Alan Danesh and George Buvyer from Victoria.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a special

introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: Seated on the floor of the House today is a person

who has been seated in the House for almost 14 years. My colleague, the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), was born in Louisiana

in 1929. He lived in Oregon and became a Canadian citizen in 1962. He

has a lengthy, distinguished record in amateur sports, both in the

United States and in Canada. He was all-city and state football and

basketball champion, a high-jump champion in high school, an NCAA

high-jump champion and member of the all-American track and field team

in 1952. He was a member of the United States Olympic team in 1952, and

achieved all-time high-jump best of 6 feet 9½ inches. At the time, the

world record was just 6 feet 11 inches. In the United States army, he

was a distinguished member of the teams in basketball, football and

track.

In British Columbia, he continued his senior basketball activities

and entered the national playoffs from Vancouver in 1962 with the

Harlem Nocturnes team. In coaching he was assistant coach to Frank Gnup

of the University of British Columbia Thunderbirds, and head coach of

junior Big Four league teams as well. In the National Football League

he was with the Green Bay Packers in 1956, and in 1957 joined the B.C.

Lions in their third year of playing football in Vancouver and B.C.

As a result of an injury he was off for a while, and then went to

the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and returned to B.C. In 1962, '63 and '64. He

was a Grey Cup finalist in 1963 against Hamilton in Vancouver and a

Grey Cup champion in 1964 against Hamilton in Toronto. He was chosen

outstanding athlete in 1979 by his alma mater, the University of

Oregon, for an NCAA silver anniversary award. He received his education

in the United States at the University of Oregon, and at the University

of British Columbia.

He has had a distinguished record as a professional social worker

and has served on two human rights organizations. His political record

all members of the House know. He was a founding member of the Black

Historical Society of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow in Vancouver, my colleague the first member

for Vancouver Centre will be inducted into the

[ Page 8504 ]

Hall of Fame, together with the Grey Cup champions

of 1964.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of my colleague the hon. first

member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), may we extend every

best wish to a great former athlete.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MR. ROSE: I have a question I'd like to dedicate to the

Minister of Post-Secondary Education. The Chief Justice of the supreme

court recently issued a solemn warning regarding the underfunding of

post-secondary education. Since B.C. has perhaps the lowest

participation rates in terms of its students going on, except for

Newfoundland, I want to know whether the government has considered

restoring the funding that's been chopped away from education.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, part of the question is in order.

It clearly contains much argument and debate.

HON. R. FRASER: A very interesting question — that we would

have a political statement by a judge, especially when he's sitting on

the stage with the man that put the whole country in debt so far that

there's not much money left for social services like universities and

education. The fact is that this province is doing very well. The hard

work that we did in the last couple of years has created the Excellence

in Education fund that is now going into place. The $600 million that

will go into the budgets in the next three years will go a long way to

restoring and enhancing the university system we have in British

Columbia.

We talk about institutions, and we look back at UBC, which almost

closed in the Depression, and look at it now. People can relive,

survive, endure, enhance and do all kinds of things with ingenuity and

hope. It's not just throwing money that we're talking about with

British Columbians; it's ingenuity, self-reliance and all those good

things.

This province is doing extremely well, and I thank the member for

the question.

MR. ROSE: I think the minister is throwing more than money at

this House. That's not unusual for him.

I wonder if the minister is concerned that B.C. Is now importing

about 30 percent of its trained professionals, and if he is, what steps

does he intend to take to reverse this trend?

HON. R. FRASER: We will never stop importing people who will

make a contribution to this province, no matter what they do.

MR. ROSE: I agree with the minister on that one, but we

should also make sure that our own students have opportunities in

British Columbia. Right now we're the only province making money out of

EPF. Between the federal funds and student fees, that's where all the

post-secondary education is financed. Please don't listen to the

Minister of Finance; he's trying to prompt you into an incorrect answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There may have been a question

there. The Chair was unable to discern one, if the minister was.

HON. R. FRASER: Talk about EPF! Mr. Speaker, as you know, it

was again the federal government that unilaterally cut the money for

health care, which now causes all the provinces across the land

unanimously to disagree with the federal position.

Now when you put health care and education together, Mr. Speaker,

this province pays for 55 percent of the total package, leaving only 45

percent for the federal or approximately that much. We're doing the job

out here, Mr. Member, we're doing it fine.

MR. ROSE: My final question. I hope the province will take

the advice of this supreme court justice and restore the funds. But in

the meantime, a related question.

What has the minister been able to do to the universities' policies

of limiting enrolment for those people bound for university, people

receiving partial training in community colleges? Is he aware of how

this discriminates against rural youngsters, and what does he intend to

do about it?

HON. R. FRASER: There were two things I want to respond to.

Firstly, I recall quite clearly that Thomas Berger was asked to resign

from the bench when he made a political statement. I wonder if anybody

is going to ask for this one.

Secondly, when we get to the business of transferring from colleges

to university or whatever, we're going to make sure there is a balanced

program across the whole province so that every student, no matter from

whence they come, will have a shot at post-secondary.

POLITICAL STATEMENTS BY JUDICIARY

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Attorney-General which is related to the minister's statement. At one

time Mr. Justice Berger was forced to resign his seat because of what

were considered political statements at the time. I wonder if the

Attorney-General has reviewed the statements of the Chief Justice of

that Chief Justice to keep his nose out of politics, and whether he

should look at his own job and look at the fact that he should resign

if he wants to get involved in politics.

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no, I haven't. But the Chief

Justice of Canada and all judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are

subject to the Judicial Council of Canada, and the Chief Justice of

Canada, when he came here and spoke at the University of British

Columbia at a convocation address, spoke on the subject of education.

That would be a matter that I don't think would require comment from me

or provincial cabinet ministers. I think the Chief Justice of Canada

can look after himself.

QUESNEL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

MR. LAUK: Jimmy Pattison will fire him, I don't know.

To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in estimates the

Attorney-General said he would consider an inquiry into the conduct of

Crown counsel in a recent sexual

[ Page 8505 ]

assault case in Quesnel. Has the Attorney-General decided to call

for such an inquiry?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I have not. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, the allegations that were made in my estimates yesterday about

Crown counsel in this case.... I'm speaking about the case of Joyal,

Larson, Reimer and Lorntsen, all of whom were charged with assault

arising out of an incident in Quesnel in September 1985, and I just

should perhaps put the circumstances in perspective, because a number

of allegations were made yesterday, and they were dealt with before

different courts.

Two of them pleaded guilty in supreme court to assault — that is,

Lorntsen and Reimer — and they were given one year each. The other two

— Joyal and Larson — pleaded guilty before a provincial court judge to

assault. One was given a conditional discharge and community work, and

the other was given a suspended sentence and community work.

Of course, when you hear those facts you might think that there were

inequalities, but you know, a Crown counsel involved in a case like

this or a judge trying a case like this has to take into account in the

criminal justice system the very different strengths of the evidence

against one accused or against another accused. In this case the

complainant herself in the preliminary hearing testified that some of

the acts were consensual — that she had consented to some of the acts

with one of the accused. It was also impossible for this person to

identify several other accused. One accused was identified. One of the

accused who was dealt with had a previous history, and others had none.

So what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that all these matters were

carefully considered by Crown counsel — considered by them fairly and

balanced by them fairly, and in the interest of justice they dealt with

them as the evidence and as their circumstances warranted.

I will at some other stage make a comment as well against the

allegations that the second member for Vancouver Centre made against

the judge, because they were serious allegations. I didn't mean, by

discussing the fact that the judge had decided to take medical leave,

to suggest in any way that those allegations were accepted. Those

allegations, it turns out, are not correct. I will respond in some

detail to those, because I feel that allegations of that kind made

against a sitting judge at any level should be responded to.

MR. LAUK: I read the transcripts too, Mr. Speaker, and I do

not characterize it in the same way as the Attorney-General does. Is

the Attorney-General satisfied that this case was properly investigated

and prosecuted by the Crown?

HON. MR. SMITH: Absolutely.

MR. LAUK: I take it then that there will be no further

inquiries of the Attorney-General's office?

HON. MR. SMITH: I said that I would make a statement about

the allegations that he made about a presiding judge of the Provincial

Court. But there will be no further inquiry. I've made a thorough

inquiry, as has my deputy, and I'm satisfied that these matters were

proceeded with fairly and properly. Two of the accused who received a

jail sentence have both appealed their sentences and later this week

their appeals are going to be heard, so I am very reluctant to canvass

the facts or discuss inquiries. But I can tell you that the appeal is

being resisted. The Crown counsel have taken a proper and careful view

in each of these cases, based on the strength of the case and the

circumstances of the accused.

MR. LAUK: Does the Attorney-General feel that a sentence of

one year for a violent assault — a violent rape — and a suspended

sentence and conditional discharge in two other cases is a satisfactory

way to proceed under the Code under this kind of circumstance?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the two members who are conducting

debate are aware of the rules that bind this type of debate. I would

caution members that at this time, in view of the fact that it has been

stated that the matter is under appeal, further discussion would not be

in order.

MR. LAUK: If the Attorney-General advises that he regards it

as sub judice, I'll take the matter up after the appeal.

QUEEST BEACH HOLDINGS LTD. ROAD

MR. HOWARD: I would like to ask the Minister of Forests

whether he can confirm that in November 1982 Queest Beach Holdings Ltd.

started to build a road over Crown land without any approval on the

part of the Crown.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If it's something that happened in 1982

and if it's something related to Forests and Crown land, not having

responsibility for the portfolio then, I would have to take that

question as notice.

MR. HOWARD: Not that the minister's parliamentary secretary

didn't bring these matters to his attention earlier. Could I ask the

minister when it was subsequently discovered that Queest Beach Holdings

Ltd. were in trespass on Crown land, that a penalty of $545 was imposed

upon Queest Beach Holdings Ltd. by the regional office because of

damage to Crown land, because of stealing and selling Crown timber, and

for building a 400-metre road through Crown land?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I've already advised the member that I

will take the question on notice.

MR. HOWARD: Would the minister also inquire as to whether his

parliamentary secretary was the president of Queest Beach Holdings

Limited?

GASOLINE PRICES

MR. D'ARCY: To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. In recent years, the interior and the north consumers have

been charged from one to two cents a litre more for gasoline than the

price that was usually charged in the lower mainland when a gas war was

not in effect in either general location. In recent months, the

discrepancy has been four to five cents per litre, depending on where

you were, in the interior or the north. I'm wondering what the minister

has done as far as contacting the industry to find out why this price

discrepancy is in place and how soon the industry is going to lower the

price for interior and northern consumers, who, I might say, depend

very much on gasoline and their cars simply to conduct their daily

business and get about.

[ Page 8506 ]

[2:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think that member is, as many other

people are, aware that there have been over the years all sorts of

inquiries and studies and investigations about the different gasoline

prices throughout the province. I think the general conclusion has

always been that there is really not that much that can be done about

it. We've talked to some of the companies about it, and it's partly the

market system that is putting the gas prices on there.

One of the things that comes up at all times is the volume of sales

in the lower mainland that makes a markup a little less of a markup and

they still can survive. These are the arguments that have come in the

past. I'm sure that they're the same arguments and answers that will

come forth now. It's been used as apolitical device many times by many

members and the answer always comes out basically the same: it's a

marketing system that establishes the prices.

FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief

ministerial statement and table a document in line with some of the

requests of our loyal opposition. They have asked for a statement of

the provincial participation in the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations.

This has been the earliest opportunity for us to present this to the

Legislature inasmuch as the Premier of the province has first of all

been discussing this paper with the western premiers and only last

night presented it to the Prime Minister of Canada.

The provincial position, as the members all know, is to support the

concept of negotiations towards free trade with the United States; to

have a stay of all proceedings to impose duties — that is, to take away

free trade that already exists; to have provincial consultation during

the course of the negotiations and a ratification procedure at the

termination of any agreement. I can report to the House from the

Premier today that the B.C. position was accepted by the Prime Minister

with compliments. The British Columbia position has been noted, and

further statements will be coming from the Premier on his return and

from the Prime Minister, keeping in mind that if one is to go to the

table able to negotiate, one doesn't discuss in detail the whole of

one's position prior to that time.

Members will also know that there have been some regrettable

retrogressive steps which have particularly affected British Columbia:

the shake-and-shingle episode and now the acceptance by the ITC of the

U.S. softwood industry application for countervail. The position of

the B.C. government is that the retaliatory measures are ones of deep

regret, but necessary to indicate that Canada simply cannot accept

trade insults without there being some reply. We still hope that there

will be a reconsideration of the 35 percent tariff on shakes and

shingles, and we hope as well that the ITC will continue to see the

lack of merit in the U.S. softwood industry application.

We appeal once more to the members opposite to recognize that free

trade is what we have had in shakes and shingles and softwood lumber,

that particularly the national leader of the New Democratic Party has

not wanted these free-trade discussions despite the position of the

Premier of Manitoba. It would be helpful if there were in this

Legislature united opinion on the desirability of free trade, because

this is what we have in shakes and shingles and in softwood lumber. It

has been taken away in shakes and shingles, and you can see the

penalties and consequences when we give up free trade. It simply isn't

good enough to demand when we have free trade that we retain free trade

but we not negotiate protection and even extension of what has brought

prosperity to this province.

In any event, this is not time for a political speech; it's time to

provide information that the opposition asked, and I only make it with

the appeal that the members opposite see the light and join us as

united British Columbians in this endeavour.

MR. SPEAKER: In response to a broad-ranging statement, the

member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Well, apropos of that last sentence of the

Minister of International Trade, he himself by his own rhetoric almost

prevents someone from seeing any light whatsoever, in whatever he's

talking about. I regret very much that he took the occasion, over a

very substantive and important question to British Columbia, to distort

and twist the remarks and position of the New Democratic Party in this

House. That's a regrettable action.

We have said on more than one occasion, if hon. members opposite

would listen, and I have to say it again, that lumber is not a

negotiable item. Lumber now stands in the position of being free trade

vis-Ã -vis our relationship with the United States, and we want to keep

it that way. It's exactly the same with shakes and shingles. Red cedar

shakes and shingles were in the position of being a free trade item

until President Reagan saw fit to double-cross his buddy the Prime

Minister of Canada and impose that kind of tariff.

I submit to you that we should be using — and we have advanced this

argument on a number of occasions — our position at those trade

negotiations to get a commitment out of the United States that it will

reverse the 35 percent tariff on red cedar shakes and shingles, which

is only applicable to British Columbia, and we should get a commitment

out of the United States government that it will not even consider

imposing a tariff of any kind on lumber produced in Canada,

particularly in British Columbia, and exported into the United States.

This is the purpose of the suggestion to recall Mr. Reisman from those

talks for instructions from the federal government to pursue that

course of action.

Free trade, so-called, is of much more advantage to the United

States than it is to Canada. They desperately want it so that their

manufactured goods can come into Canada without a tariff barrier and

without a duty. That's the purpose, and that's the attraction to the

United States. We should use that desire on the part of the United

States as a lever in those negotiations, and insist upon that kind of

response from the United States before we make further progress

negotiating other items.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I seek the floor to present a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the petition that I am

presenting is to "the hon. the Legislative Assembly of the Province of

British Columbia in Legislature Assembled." The petition of the

undersigned citizens, most of whom reside at or near Kelowna in the

province of British Columbia, states:

[ Page 8507 ]

"We oppose the closure of Hollywood Road Junior

Secondary School by School District 23. We urge the Minister of

Education not to approve this closure and instead ask the board of

school trustees to re-evaluate the situation and find a more reasonable

solution in consultation with the community. Your petitioners

respectfully request that the hon. House convey this petition to the

Premier and Minister of Education."

It's dated June 3, 1986. Along with the petition, I ask leave to

table 110 letters from the students of Hollywood Road School, mostly

addressed to the Minister of Education, outlining their opposition to

the closure of their school.

Leave granted.

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to seek the

floor just before the Clerk called the orders of the day. I'd like to

respond to a question that was put to me a few days ago by the hon.

member...

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ...for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). It

deals with a question of safety of nuclear installations located near

British Columbia borders. The most significant of these installations,

as members well know, I presume, is contained in the Hanford reserve,

which is at Richland, Washington, about 190 miles away. Other reactors

are situated in Rainier, Oregon, and Idaho Falls, Idaho.

I've been in communication with the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, the

Secretary of State for External Affairs for our country, and I've

clear to the United States authorities that nuclear facilities

operating near the Canadian border should be maintained with the

highest possible regard for public safety; and I requested an account

of the measures that Mr. Clark's department has taken to inform the

United States government of Canadian concerns.

I further indicated that we'd appreciate being informed of the

information which the United States authorities may have provided with

respect to the safety of these nuclear installations that are closest

to our borders, and drew to the attention of Mr. Clark that it is our

view that the question of reactor safety is one in which the very

closest of cooperation is required and warranted between our two

countries, and suggested that the use of the good offices of the

existing binational agency — the International Joint Commission — could

perhaps play a

part in that.

We're looking forward to an early response from Mr. Clark, and with

the leave of the House I would ask if I may file the letter that I sent

to him.

Leave granted.

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 65; minister's office. $194,140.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, when we were having our discussions

prior to the lunch break we were asking the minister about the casino

gambling regulations, and a press release was put out saying that there

were now regulations for casino and bingos. Now we find out that the

regulations are for bingos and the casino regulations have not been

released. They probably haven't even gone to cabinet, and there hasn't

been any public input.

There is a committee of this House that has never met, called the

justice committee, which could have been activated. It has members. It

could be sitting together with the Vancouver police or other police

organizations, interested groups, in making sure that adequate controls

are in place to ensure that legalized gambling, licensed casino

gambling, commercial gambling — whatever you want to call it — in the

province of British Columbia does not go the route of such activities

that have taken place in other parts of the world where inadequate

controls result in skimming of the profits, and the recipients, the

charity groups and so on that are supposed to be the recipients of some

of the funds, get the proper funds and there are proper safeguards for

the clients, the people who are playing the game, and all the other

safeguards around it in terms of a large amount of capital or cash —

ready cash. That invites oftentimes illegal activities that we

certainly don't need in the province of British Columbia.

So we're very unclear on this side of the House precisely where

these regulations are at, how the public and the various interest

organizations can now have input, at what sort of interim stage are

these regulations, and when will cabinet be dealing with them.

[2:45]

My colleague from north Okanagan (Mr. MacWilliam) has asked a number

of questions along this line. We would like some answers from the

minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I did give some answers

this morning, and if they didn't satisfy the member, may I just repeat

and maybe embellish that response.

I want you to know that casino regulations have existed since 1978

and what you had on Friday was a very clear statement on how those

casino regulations would be changed in order to reflect the thinking of

the government. The regulations will be made available to the public no

later than Friday of this week and as early as tomorrow. They are

already in existence. They are really changing the regulations that

were already in place, but changing the amount. For example, the

ceiling of a $5 bet has been reduced to a $2 bet. That was very clearly

done on Friday at the press conference.

There was nothing obscure about the message or the regulations or

the intent of the regulations. I really take exception to the member's

thinking that I had in some way not wanted to put those regulations

forward.

These regulations are simply a change in terms of amounts, etc., the

same kinds of things that have gone on in other years. It's been

consistent. It is not new. It was only re-

[ Page 8508 ]

emphasized that casino-style gambling licences were available only

as an adjunct to a social occasion. That's not a brand-new regulation;

it's been there all the while. A maximum of three casino licences per

year per organization has been there all the while. That's just a

reaffirmation of what has already been there. Some of the things that

were changed, such as the minimum 50 percent of casino keep to be

donated to charity — that was not a change in the regulation but a

change in the amount. It was heretofore 35 percent, and it's been

changed so that 50 percent of the proceeds will go to the charity.

So I want to assure the member — and I'm sure he asked the question

in all good faith — that the return and the one that really does have

the attention of most of the people in the game is regarding the $5

reduced to $2. I think he will have had those kinds of representations

made to him, and all members of this House will have. The return to

this bet is consistent with the regulation that did exist between 1978

and 1984, when charitable donations from casinos were in excess of 50

percent of the proceeds.

There was direct consultation with the police in the city of

Vancouver, and the RCMP, which resulted in the limit of 12 licences per

week in Vancouver. That is a change. That was very directly a response

to them, because of their monitoring capability, or lack thereof, if

there is a proliferation of games.

I hope the member is satisfied that it is simply a reaffirmation of

some of the rules that were already in existence. We. will get them out

at the earliest possible opportunity. If I could get them out by five

today I would get them out. But I think they will be ready by tomorrow.

MR. MacWILLIAM: First of all let me say that the general

direction the minister appears to be taking with the new regulations is

favourable. What does concern me, however, is not necessarily the

change but rather the process. The minister, in the news release on May

30, said that new bingo and casino policy directives are the result of

consultations with a wide variety of community groups. The minister

takes issue with this, but according to an interview on CBC this

morning the police were not directly consulted. At least that was the

statement from the individual there. But more so, I would like to ask

the minister how many community groups and which community groups she

solicited information from or canvassed with regard to changes in the

casino policy — not the bingo, because I know that was well canvassed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You're correct in your statement that

there was more concentration on community groups with bingos, because,

you see, there are more community groups concerned with casinos....

In terms of the casino operations, we have had from various people, and

I have in my possession from the time that I was asked to take on this

responsibility.... Very many people have phoned, seen and written

to me regarding the proliferation of casinos in the province. The

member has many times expressed that concern himself. I think these

regulations will curtail the tremendous growth, will give more of the

take, if you like, to charities and will see a stop in the

watering-down effect. There were getting to be many more charities

which were splitting the pie. I think that was reinforced today, also

on the same radio show, on which you say that the person interviewed

was not consulted. It is quite possible that the person interviewed, in

explaining to the radio host his lack of detail or whatever, was

himself not consulted. I can tell you that the Vancouver police and the

RCMP were consulted not just for a short time but over a long period of

time. My predecessor had information and input from them, and I have

had, as has the Attorney-General.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Without having the regulations pursuant to

the casinos in front of me — they have not been released at this time —

it is somewhat difficult to assess whether the regulations have been

made too stringent or whether they have been made stringent enough.

It's difficult to assess whether there are any unforeseen loopholes

inherent in the regulations which really can't be — or perhaps fail to

be — picked up because of the lack of consultation.

I wonder if the minister would consider putting out the regulations

in draft form and giving the community at large a chance to respond

before the regulations become finalized. Once again, I appreciate what

she's trying to do, but my concern is that we haven't got the

regulations in front of us and there may be weaknesses. I maintain that

there has been insufficient discussion of them. I'm sure the minister

is quite well aware that when drafting fairly detailed regulations,

sometimes things are overlooked. Sometimes things are implemented which

are unworkable. I think the community at large should at least have

some input into this process.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member knows that this process has

been going on since 1978 and we are simply amending the regulations.

There will be an opportunity for amendments as the years go by. The

process will continue as government hears from both sides of the House,

from people in the community. No, I do not plan to put it out as a

White Paper or a discussion paper. The regulations will come in as

stated.

Frankly, with the greatest respect, everything in that press release

was I think fairly well and clearly spelled out. Any of the changes are

clearly spelled out. The member is perhaps reflecting the fact that

there is a concern. Perhaps he has been receiving a few phone calls

from people — all members of this House will — because there is very

definitely a change in the take. There's no question that that will be

a concern to those who are in the business. I appreciate that, but I

wanted to make those changes. I gave you notice, at the time a question

was brought before this House, that I intended to look at it.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the member, having looked at it, having

decided that this was the way they can be curtailed — can keep

organized crime out of the province — would ask for a postponement or

another look. The answer is no, and if I can get those regulations out

in the nearest opportunity just to ensure that there is no lack of

clarity, believe me, I will do it as quickly as I possibly can.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment briefly

on the transit portion of the minister's responsibilities and very

sincerely commend the minister for the establishment of the

park-and-ride facility that we have just off Scott Road in Surrey. I've

been down to the site on several occasions, and I can assure her that

it is an overwhelming success even though it has not been broadly

publicized. Obviously the word is getting around that it's easy access

to the transportation that can take people into Expo, and there is

generally, I would say, a minimum of 50 percent usage of the lot. On

one occasion it was at least two-thirds full.

[ Page 8509 ]

I would also like to speak, I guess, for our colleague from New

Westminster, who seems to forget to mention the new life that has been

brought into New Westminster because of the SkyTrain extension to that

city. I know that my colleague from Surrey and I are looking forward

with great anticipation to the awarding of the contract for the

crossing of the Fraser River, which will see SkyTrain come into the

South Westminster area of our constituency, immediately followed by an

extension into Whalley.

So Madam Minister, on behalf of the two members for Surrey, we want

to thank you for the extension into our community and to assure you

that it is being used at this time, even though just on a transit

park-and- ride-into-the-SkyTrain-station basis. We can assure you

that it will be absolutely oversubscribed when the installation is

complete.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, I have

gone on record as supporting the general thrust of her changes with

regard to the casino and bingo operations. But just to clarify that for

the minister, the reason I asked for consultation with the community at

large is simply to ensure that the regulatory changes that have been

imposed are in fact changes that are realistic and stringent enough. We

have great concern on this side of the House about the element of

organized crime, as well as the element of excess profit-taking and the

social problems that are attendant with legalized gambling. The

minister is fully aware of those concerns, and the reason I address

that is to ensure that those regulations are in fact tight enough.

[3:00]

However, let's leave that for a moment. I want to go to a specific

area, going back to the regulations, which I do have before me, on

bingo.

section 1.01 in the new regulations tries to identify or give a

clear

interpretation of the term "charitable object." If I can just

read this out:

"Charitable object or purpose means an object or

purpose which comes within one of the legal classifications of charity:

(1) relief of poverty, (2) advancement of education, (3) the

advancement of religion and (4) other purposes beneficial to the

community (this includes a purpose where the benefits derived are

available to a significant portion of the community without

discrimination, and, without limiting the intent, may include the

provision and support of public recreation, picnic areas, playgrounds,

cultural activities....)"

In a report that I submitted for the minister's consideration back

in December, the definition of "charitable object" does not seem to

have been amended from back then. The criticism I had at that time is

that there does not appear to be a clear

interpretation of

"charitable," even within the framework of the present

interpretation.

I think that

the definition is still inadequate, because it doesn't give precise

guidelines or qualifications.

A good example is the word "significant." What composes a

significant community interest? The reason I bring that up is that

there is a lot of confusion. For example, does a local ski team qualify

as being a charitable object? Do they make a significant contribution

to the community? How is that different, for example, from a church

group as a charitable object? I think there is a problem in there in

delineating what the term charitable object means. There is a lot of

confusion out there in the community, and I don't think that your

changes have taken in that concern.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think that there is a reason for

wanting to have significant charitable organizations: so that it will

cover some things. I think in the new regulations we are able to

clearly cover amateur sports, which was rather vague before. I will

take your comments, however.

They are regulations. They can be changed very easily and often, if

we want to. But we would like to have them consistent and not change

them too often, so they can be well understood by the public.

I think you will find that it covers a wide range and does not shut

out too many things. I think that was what we were concerned with, that

perhaps you would come along with an idea or representing an

organization, and if it is too tightly controlled, then they just don't

fit into the guidelines. We are trying as much as possible to make it

possible for those who are truly serving a wide group in the community,

represented by that line that makes a significant contribution.

While I'm on my feet I would like to thank the first member for

Surrey, who talks about the SkyTrain and the park-and-ride, and I want

to say that the suggestion given for the park-and-ride at Surrey was

very useful to us, because we have been deluged, more so in that

particular park-and-ride than any other, and particularly with American

tourists. The suggestion that had come to us from the members was to do

with the exchange on the dollar, the difference in the dollar — a

well-posted and clear direction. So that was very helpful. We, too,

look forward to going into Surrey.

MR. REE: I want to stand here because I've sat listening to

most of this debate with respect to the minister's estimates, and a

great part of it certainly shows the different political philosophy

between the two parties in this House. We sat listening to the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) talking about certain possible changes

in the Election Act — and I appreciate that legislation is not a

subject matter of estimates. He was talking about having cards sent out

to voters confirming that they've been on the voters' list. He was

talking about having it accessible so that you can be registered,

saying voters will not be registered and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REE: The support and the applause to those statements

that I'm receiving from the members of the opposition here indicates

their philosophy. Their strict philosophy is to lead everybody by the

hand in this province. In other words, they don't feel anybody should

have any individual initiative himself. Nobody should be responsible

for themselves. They want government to be responsible for everybody.

And that is strictly what? They want to tell people what path they can

go down, and so on.

Our legislation at this time provides excellent information for

letting somebody know whether they're on the voters' list. It does an

enumeration at and between election times. It maintains offices where

people can go if they are interested in getting on the voters' list, or

if their MLA has enough knowledge to tell them where to go to get on

the voters' list people can do that between elections at any time. And

in addition the present legislation provides that a person still has a

means of registering and voting on election day if he's not on the

voters' list beforehand. It's not an absentee vote. We in British

[ Page 8510 ]

Columbia, under our elections laws, have the broadest opportunities

for people to participate in the democratic process and be registered

and vote on election day of any province in Canada, including Manitoba.

But, Mr. Chairman, we listen to these people that want to take

everybody by the hand and help them along. In other words, a person

hasn't got an opportunity to do their own thing and have some

individual responsibility.

I just wished to point that out. That's the big difference between

the two political parties in this chamber, Mr. Chairman: there are

those that want to lead everybody and those that are letting people get

out and be individuals and be responsible.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Your philosophical insight is devastating.

MR. REE: I know it is.

But I basically wanted to stand here and thank the minister with

respect to a lottery grant application that was recently approved here

about a week or so ago for $400,000 for Capilano College. The students

at Capilano College, on their initiative, with the support of the staff

of Capilano College, wanted to have a recreational facility for the

whole community of the North Shore in the lower mainland. They started

it; they worked it; they put the idea together. The idea was not to

come to government to pay for the whole thing. They're prepared to pay

and work for some of it themselves and they're prepared to get the

community involved to pay for part of it, but they did come to

government for a certain portion of it — less than one-third, as far as

the provincial government is concerned, of the $3.8 million cost for

this recreational facility. The Minister of Post-Secondary Education

out of the capital fund approved $800,000 and the Provincial Secretary

as minister responsible for lotteries did approve the $400,000. Madam

Minister, on behalf of the students — because I was out there for their

graduation ceremony — they want to extend their appreciation for the

approval and for the grant. It will be a great addition to the North

Shore community. We have the district of North Vancouver contributing.

I'm hoping the city of North Vancouver will contribute. I hope the

district of West Vancouver will also contribute, because a great number

of the students at Capilano College do come from West Vancouver. And

the students themselves are going to contribute over a period of time

up to $700,000 of the total cost. That's the type of students we have

in British Columbia, those who are prepared, certainly at Cap College,

to go out and work for things that they themselves feel are desirable

and not just to look to government for the handout all the time.

In addition I wish to thank the minister for an approval for

approximately $25,000 recently with respect to the upgrading of our

little-league baseball field in the city of North Vancouver. The

JayCee-Rotary-Little League group promoted this, and in total

$100,000 was raised to complete this baseball field, which this summer

will be hosting the B.C. Little League championships in August. The

facility is almost completed. I've been up there. The members of the

community, particularly a great number of the parents, have been out

working there, hammering the nails in themselves, putting wiring in,

laying concrete, and one thing and another. With some help of

government, the communities are doing this. When the community will get

out and work for something like that, I as an MLA certainly will go to

bat and see what I can do to help them. So, Madam Minister, I thank you

on that.

I'd also like to thank you with respect to approval of another

lottery grant.

Interjections.

MR. REE: If the event is worthwhile and responsible and the

community is sponsoring it, MLAs should get out there and help obtain

these, because they are available, and that's what they're there for,

for the community — not for operation but for capital costs.

Madam Minister, I had an MLA tell.... This last group I want to

thank you for went to their MLA, and he said: "Oh, it's not available,

so I'm not even going to bother." He didn't even bother to come and

make any inquiries to see whether he could get it. They came to me, and

we got approval for $40,000 for a volunteer fire hall outside Nanaimo.

The MLA up there said he wasn't going to work for the people on that.

And I noticed that earlier this afternoon the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) raised his eyes when he heard that lottery

moneys were available for fire halls — he didn't know anything about

it. I'd had another one a year ago, also up in Nanaimo, which was

published in the newspaper up there. The Nanaimo member didn't even

remember this letter, that we had had this. The member for

Coquitlam-Moody didn't have any knowledge of availability of up to

$40,000 for capital costs and renovating of volunteer fire halls. That

is why they are in opposition and we are in government — because they

don't know.

Madam Minister, one aspect of your mandate, of course, is transit,

and I have a couple of questions with respect to that. First, I'd like

to thank the transit people for the cooperation they have given the

Expo 86 volunteer league in North Vancouver in the use of facilities

down at the SeaBus terminal in North Vancouver. They've been very

cooperative. We've been able to use the signboard, and have functions

down there with various community groups participating. There are two

items I'd like to have attended to if I can. One is the bus terminal

under the ICBC building. I understand it does not have any water-hose

connections. That area becomes quite filthy from time to time, not only

because of people going through but also because of pigeons. Possibly

something can be done to make sure that can be maintained in a clean

condition. It should be cleaned about two or three times a week at

least, because it does stay fairly dirty.

One other item, Madam Minister. The development of SkyTrain is

starting to make Vancouver a bedroom for North Vancouver. SkyTrain is

an extension of Lonsdale and what not with the SeaBus, and of course,

traffic is starting to increase substantially on the SeaBus. I'm

wondering whether any studies are going on at this time as to the

possibility of stretching SeaBuses — extending them up or down or

whatever to increase their capacity; or as to when a third SeaBus might

be in the works; and if you haven't got that, whether you could get

back at a later time and advise me on it. I thank you.

[3:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to respond to

the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. The facility which he mentions

at Capilano College is going to be a facility which serves the whole of

the North Shore and very many people, so I'm pleased he mentioned it

today. I

[ Page 8511 ]

have to say that the kind of work he has done in his constituency,

working with people in his community, has been outstanding, and I

really do appreciate that. I know that's the result of some of the work

he has done with that college particularly, and that was a great

contribution to the area.

May I tell you that the bus terminal and the cleaning facilities

have always been a problem at that SeaBus terminal. There is a cleaning

service, but I can't from memory give you how frequent it is. It really

is a problem because of the number of people, even in a non-Expo year,

so I'll take another look at it. I didn't know about the lack of a hose

connection. I'm surprised at that. They must have some facility,

because they do come in and steam-clean it. I was not aware of the lack

of connections, but I'll certainly look into that.

What has happened there is that we are really suffering from the

fantastic success of Expo 86, when you talk about the number of people

and the need for another SeaBus vehicle. We looked into that before,

and we do have some studies going on to see whether or not another kind

of transportation.... Opening up a SeaBus connection further along

the North Shore may even be possible, but that study is not complete.

At the time all of this was done so that it could be done in time for

Expo 86 it did not seem financially viable. It might have been

financially viable for Expo year, but once Expo was over, then it was

too much of a plant for what we needed in an ordinary time.

So we really are suffering from the success, the tremendous success,

of Expo 86, and we hope that it will continue. I know it will never

continue quite at the pitch that it will this summer, but we are

preparing for the advent of tremendous growth, and particularly with

the economic impetus that has happened because of the SeaBus terminal

and because of the anchor ICBC building. It was a departure to take it

from downtown and into the North Vancouver community, and all of the

anchor buildings that made it possible for a fantastic commercial

organization and private funding to go in there. You're absolutely

correct, but it has made such a difference to North Vancouver and to

the terminal of the SeaBus that that success, I think, will continue,

but as I say, not at the high pitch of Expo 86. We are preparing for

that.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, a question on transit-related items

to the minister, two of which have key interest, I think, to the

communities of greater Vancouver as the current result of some problems

which have developed in relation to security.

I would ask the minister if she would consider to press now for

installation of two-way radios in all the buses that service the

greater Vancouver regional district area and possibly the Victoria area.

Interjection.

MR. REID: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm in here looking after my job as

a Whip; I don't read all the press releases. But if that is the case,

Madam Minister, I commend you on that, because as a person involved

with transit for a few years I realize the dilemma over the safety

factor that was involved, and we implemented a new system which was

partially integrated. But if that is an announcement today, I am

extremely pleased about it.

The other question, Madam Minister, if I could ask, is: would it now

be appropriate, with the accelerated ridership in both the buses and

SkyTrain, to give serious consideration to part-time operators during

the balance of the season since it seems that we are still parking

buses during some daytime periods when there is still an additional

requirement? I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to

employing more part-time operators during the time when the need is

there, serving the ridership which has increased beyond the wildest

dreams of everybody. So, Madam Minister, I would ask you to look into

both of those.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, to relieve the system over

this very difficult time, we do have the possibility of using part-time

operators. At the present time our B.C. Transit staff are looking to

take some really major steps to meet what we think is even going to be

a very much greater influx of people when the young people are out of

school, and Alberta, American and other Canadian families are coming

from all parts of the North American continent, and the world for that

matter, to visit Vancouver.

The second phase of the emergency or the Expo planning

transportation is coming into place, and before the end of this month

it will be all in place, and that is the second phase.

In regard to the telephones, I did announce it today. That has been

a study for over a year now of B.C. Transit, and it has reflected the

concerns of the drivers, it has reflected the concern of the public,

and it reflects the study and the consultation that we have had in B.C.

Transit. In the first phase, 850 buses, the ones that are in service,

will cover the 1,200-square-kilometre area, and each one will have a

direct telephone service in it.

Our system covers the largest geographical area of any system in

Canada. I know I don't have to tell you that, but it brings with it

problems. It is a marvellous service, but it goes over such a large

area that when one considers that in some places there is a very long

ride sometimes with only one or two people in a very sparsely populated

area, the concerns that we have regarding safety are very real.

The service will be extended to other areas of the province, to our

25 small community services, and of course to the city of Victoria. The

implementation of this is immediate and it should all be in place in

the next few weeks.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, listen to all this stuff! Listen to it

all. And only bits and pieces come out. All of the back-bench boys

talking about the grease that is available through the Lottery

Corporation — Grace grease from the Lottery Corporation. That is

exactly what it is. Incredible! One talks about money got for his

little league. Another talks about a hall in Pritchard or on the north

shore of Shuswap Lake or in Sicamous. Somebody else talks about another

facility, but all of it is based on political priorities — Grace

grease, political priorities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're beginning to offend the

Chair, and I would just as soon you avoid that term in reference to

another member.

MR. WILLIAMS: You bet. I agree. Not only the Chair, but all

of British Columbia should be offended. All of British Columbia should

be offended by this kind of stuff, where....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You destroyed your government and now

you're ruining the opposition.

[ Page 8512 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: There is the Minister of Forests who used to be

crying the blues, still holding his thumb in the corner because he

didn't make it as Minister of Forests. He blew it last year in the fire

season.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One moment, please. Thank you. Now the

Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will come to

order and not interrupt, and the second member for Vancouver East will

speak to the estimates and will proceed in parliamentary fashion.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But that's it indeed.

I mean, let's just try to deal with it in a kind of rational public

policy way. I'm sure the Chairman would prefer that. The question of

volunteer fire halls: isn't it reasonable that if we're in the

business of helping volunteer fire halls in British Columbia, as this

minister is wont to do in some areas, there should be an

across-the-board policy — i.e., British Columbia will help volunteer

fire halls throughout British Columbia, if it's 25 percent, 50 percent

or 75 percent? It's universal, and it doesn't depend on whether the

member is a Socred member or a member from the NDP. You just check how

many volunteer fire halls are helped on the basis of politics in this

province, and it will be very clear where the line is drawn. It will be

very, very clear indeed where the line is drawn. It's just a matter of

rational public policy, but this minister has trouble with that.

She can't generally separate policy from administration, because

she's down there with the hoses and the pigeons anyway in terms of half

these facilities. It's an impossible job for administrators under this

particular ministry because of that kind of involvement, an absolutely

impossible job. There should be rational guidelines where everybody

understands what the game is and what's fair and what isn't fair.

Instead we get this kind of thing where you get these nice little

speeches from the back-benchers saying how wonderful the woman from

Little Mountain is and how much we all appreciate what she did for me

yesterday, and I'm being nice to her today because of something I want

her to do for me tomorrow. That's the kind of crummy political game

that still goes on here in 1986, and we all thought it went out with

Tammany Hall in 1929. It's still that kind of operation.

Anyway I'd like to ask the minister a question with respect to the

casino rules and regulations. The minister decided to hold a press

conference on Friday in Vancouver — not here, but in Vancouver — and she

announced regulations. Nobody has seen the regulations. Can the

minister explain why, when she rushed to a press conference, she didn't

have the regulations with her and why we haven't seen them so far?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I've already given a very full

explanation, a very full explanation indeed, and I'll be very glad to

do it all over again. The casino regulations are changes that are

ongoing changes. Casinos have been in the province since 1978, and

they're ongoing regulations. Their growth and the circumstances

surrounding them, the representations from police enforcement agencies,

have led us to change them. I would be pleased if you would give me

leave, or perhaps at the end of this session I'd like to ask leave, to

table in the House the regulations which are available now.

I said earlier to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) that I

would try to have them by tomorrow. They are ready now. I knew that

they were almost ready, and I was hoping to get them, certainly by the

end of the week. I am pleased to table them at this point in time, if I

can ask leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tabling cannot be done in Committee of Supply,

Madam Minister. We'll have to wait until the House resumes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate that. I'll do that after the

House goes out of committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: What's the normal process in terms of the

administrative steps with respect to regulations such as this, Madam

Minister?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That's an unusual question for this

member to ask, because he's been in government, and he knows that when

legislation is struck, regulations are put forward to support

legislation. He also knows that when a policy is struck there are

regulations governing a particular policy, and he knows full well what

the process is. I don't know what sinister or what obscure kind of

motivation he thinks I have in calling a press conference and changing

the casino and bingo rules. His questioning is along the lines that he

probably thinks something is wrong. I have to tell you that you were

given full notice of my commitment to change the casino and bingo

regulations. That commitment was given way back in April when I first

took on the responsibility of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and

Government Services. I haven't had the portfolio all that long, but I

have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in the time that I have had the

portfolio, and even in the very first question in this House, I

indicated my concern. I've acted on that concern. It's the concern of

government, and the government has made that statement and the rules

that everybody seems to be concerned about, which were fully explained.

[3:30]

I have to tell you, there's nothing hidden in those regulations.

They were very fully explained in the press conference and the press

release. But they will be fully, fully, fully in detail and by each and

every numbered regulation.... They will be available to you when we

get out of the Committee of Supply, to give me the availability to file

them in the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would have thought that the normal procedure

was for those regulations to be approved by executive council.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, what makes the member

think that they were not? If he wants to go into the detail of it, not

only were they approved by the social services committee of cabinet and

then taken to full executive council, they were also approved there and

the approval for my public statement was given at that time. I don't

know why the member for Vancouver East would doubt that that would

happen that way. I'm surprised that he even makes the statement. He has

been in government. He does know what the process is. I wouldn't have

thought I would have to draw that out for him. I'm rather surprised at

the question.

[ Page 8513 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll advise the committee that the business of

the executive council or a committee of the executive council is not

the business of Committee of Supply. We are discussing specifically the

estimates of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the executive council had approved these

regulations, what I find difficult to understand is why the regulations

weren't presented at the press conference on Friday. Can the minister

explain why they were not presented at the press conference on Friday?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The regulations and the spirit of the

regulations were well canvassed by government before the announcement

was made, and with the Attorney-General, I might add. But I have to

tell you that the executive council certainly was in approval. As the

member has said, what goes on at executive council is really nothing

that should be discussed or can be discussed. I have to tell you that

even for you to ask the question seems a little strange, because you

would know more than anybody else that that kind of approval would have

to be given to any member before a public announcement would be made

that would affect so many people in the province.

Casinos have been a very popular thing throughout the province of

British Columbia, and they've grown very quickly. It is for the very

reason that they have grown quickly that the rules have been changed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have some difficulty with the idea of taking

spirit — spirits — to the executive council, and the spirit of the

regulations seems to me just a little bit hard to grab hold of in some

respects. The minister interestingly uses the term "the spirit of the

regulations." It seems fairly clear, to me at least, that what was

really going on here was a pre-emptive strike by the minister — a

pre-emptive strike in terms of her own opinion about what the rules and

regulations should be. Her own view....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. WILLIAMS: No, not "Oh, come on!" What's very apparent to

observers here is that what's going on is in this interregnum, when we

have a lame-duck Premier, is that we have ministers that take on extra

powers and extra authority. You get this minister talking about taking

the spirit of regulations to meetings. It's very clear what's going on.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You should know. You had a lame-duck

Premier for three years.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. The Minister of Agriculture still is mad

about being the Minister of Agriculture.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

That's clearly what has been happening. We have a Premier that was

away in Ottawa, a Premier that is effectively moving out of office — a

lame-duck situation — and what we have is individual decisions taken by

cabinet ministers talking about the spirit of the regulations. What

happened Friday clearly was a pre-emptive strike, a decision by the

minister before there were regulations. The regulations brought in just

now, with the ink drying on them, clearly could not have been

regulations that were taken to cabinet. The regulations just brought in

the door still had wet ink. That seems to be the pattern. Whether

that's part of some other program in terms of the leadership thing or

the rest of it, it's fascinating to watch.

Under this ministry, there have been all kinds of expenditures in

the last year in terms of payments and grease of one kind or another. A

very big lump was paid out in terms of former employees, and maybe the

minister can explain those payments. The numbers I looked at in

reviewing public accounts were about $14 million in severance pay. Can

the minister advise me what the average severance pay was during the

last fiscal year with respect to her ministry? In addition, I see they

spent something like $35,000 for Omega gold watches. Was that an

ancillary expenditure relative to those terminations or are those the

25-year sort of arrangements, or what? Maybe she can give us more of

the details of the $14 million in severance pay — in the name of

restraint in British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd like to answer the three subjects

that the member has brought up. In spite of the fact that he's trying

to flush out something that is not even there, I said on the floor of

this House earlier today, when I was asked by the member for Victoria,

that the regulations were done but they were not made public until....

I'm going to do that today. I knew they were nearly finished. There

were just little items to be redone on them — the wording and so on

tidied up. Anything you've said today regarding my colleagues' lack of

knowledge in regard to the casino regulations is a figment of your own

imagination. It is absolutely not true that they were unaware, and I

resent the inference you have put forward today. It is completely

untrue. It's very like the member from Vancouver East to weave some

kind of conspiracy thing; that suits the philosophical bent. But it

isn't true, and I categorically refuse to accept that kind of inference

from the second member for Vancouver East.

Secondly, you mentioned earlier in your questions about lottery

grants for fire halls. You mentioned that very few fire hall grants are

given, but it's interesting that two were in opposition-type ridings —

Lantzville volunteer fire department and the Cranberry volunteer fire

department — one north of Nanaimo, one south of Nanaimo.

Regarding the gold watches, a public servant who serves for 35 years

in the province of British Columbia is, at a dinner honouring their

length of service and their contribution to the people of British

Columbia, awarded a gold watch. I would think the expenditure of a gold

watch for someone who has served 35 years in dedicated service to the

province is an expenditure that all the people of British Columbia

would laud.

You asked about severance. The average would be $9,500.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the average was $9,500, some were as high as

$60,000. Would the minister confirm that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not clear to me, in terms of the answer,

if she cannot confirm it — i.e. It was not so — or she simply doesn't know.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: She says she can't confirm it. It's like

she says.

[ Page 8514 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there are two options, The member from

Yale-Lillooet might not understand that.

The question was: in some cases, was as much as $60,000 paid in

terms of severance to some former officials of the provincial

administration?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't have that figure. I am advised

that that figure isn't available right at this second, but the member

knows that if he puts that question on the order paper it can be very

quickly obtained for him. I'd be pleased to do that.

MR. WILLIAMS: It just seems to me that $14 million is a lot

of money. That amount was paid out in the last fiscal year. I presume

there was a substantial amount in the previous fiscal year; I haven't

been privy to those public accounts details. But let us just remember

that this restraint program — so-called — costs the people of British

Columbia a great deal of money, and $14 million alone in severance pay.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the member's query, let me

say that the severance pay is very large in this particular year, but

for the same people who received severance pay, if they had not been

severed, if they had not taken severance pay, the annual savings to the

people of British Columbia is $37.5 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: And the assumption and suggestion of the

minister is that there is absolutely no service for that amount of

money; you know, that there isn't something on the other side of the

balance sheet in terms of services to people or a whole range of other

things which cannot be ignored.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I know. I'm making the point because you

chose not to, that's all.

I wonder how the minister feels, and if she intends during her

tenure to do the kind of spending that has been the pattern in this

department. I wonder if she's watched the "Say It With Music"

production by Jem Productions. Has she listened to or watched the "Say

It With Music" production that her ministry produced?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am not familiar with the film of which

the member speaks, but he also is knowledgeable that I'm very new in

the ministry and that would have come before my time. If he would like

to explain where that one has been shown, if it's an Expo film I have

probably seen it. I wasn't aware that Jem Productions did an Expo film,

but all that I have seen at Expo have been excellent and I would

congratulate them if they did.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well that, of course, was Mr. Heal, a former

staff person with the government who is very close to the Social Credit

Party. He charged $32,867.33 for "Say It With Music." I would like the

opportunity to see these films myself. I've been advised that one is

available in the Small Business ministry, but if arrangements could be

made for the opposition to see these various films it would certainly

be appreciated.

There's another one. I wonder if the minister has seen this one by

Doug and the boys, Jem Productions. It's called "Take A Giant Step."

Oh, I'm sorry, Dave Brown and Doug Heal. Has the minister seen the

other film "Take A Giant Step"?

[3:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would think that neither of the films

that the member has spoken of today have come under my ministry. I

think they do not. During the year we are discussing in my ministry

estimates at this moment, there were Expo and economic development

opportunity type, Expo-related films done for economic

development–related activities in order to boost economic development

on an

international basis, and you may be referring to that kind of film. If

you want detailed information on that, again, if they could be

questions put on the order paper, because I frankly don't have that

information at hand.

MR. WILLIAMS: "Take A Giant Step," of course, is the magnum

opus with respect to northeast coal. So it's the story of northeast

coal: take a giant step into another hole.

There is another film that Mr. Brown and Jem Productions also turned

out. This is all for GIS, the minister's department. Some $66,584.76

was spent on "Health Care — Our First Priority." Has the minister seen

that one, and is it available to the opposition?

HON. MR. McCARTHY: I am sure it would be. I think you should

be in touch with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I am sure

he would make it available. I see no reason why any of them are not

available to you. I don't understand that that's related to the

question at hand.

What I am trying to find here, and I am sorry, when your line of

questioning is in detail of names of films on which I don't have that

information.... I can tell you how much was spent from my ministry.

You mentioned the name of Doug Heal, and I can tell you what was spent.

We do not have Mr. Heal under any contract with the Provincial

Secretary. You mentioned the name of Mr. Brown and Jem Productions, and

he has done production of "Provincial Report" television commercials,

and he has done economic development commercials. He has done footage

in British Columbia. He produced a remarkable film for Tsukuba, all

was quite an outstanding film. I would think in my rather amateur

assessment of films that it was really an award-winning film for the

province of British Columbia. I can't name all of the work that has

been done. That was one I happened to know about because I was

impressed with the two languages for the Pacific Rim. In total, Jem

Productions had seven contracts with our ministry in this past year

which we are discussing, for a total of $408,397.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am getting the impression, then, that all of

the films through the various related ministries will be available. I

think that that would be extremely useful for the opposition to take

out into the various ridings and show how almost half a million dollars

of public money was spent promoting the government.

MR. REID: Watch them. They're pretty positive, you know.

Promise to watch them yourself.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it would be really fun, especially with

the northeast coal one, because after this summer it may be something

for the archives.

[ Page 8515 ]

I wonder how much of that $408,000 was spent with respect to filming

the Coquihalla Highway question, and other odds and ends. The visit of

the Lord Mayor of London to the British pavilion — we paid for the

filming of that. The visit of the Lord Mayor of London rates public

expenditure on filming. What kind of economic development or job

creation does all that represent? It is just all part of the propaganda

exercise of your ministry.

Governor Spellman was here from Washington in that fiscal year, and

you spent $5,823.95 filming Governor Spellman from Washington State.

What would we use...?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Agriculture is being helpful

again.

What would we use $5,800 worth of film of Governor Spellman for,

Mr. Chairman? Maybe the minister could advise me. What would the film

of Governor Spellman, costing $5,800, be used for in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it probably had something

to do with the promotion of Expo prior to Expo. I would only be

guessing, because I really do not know. That could well be. But we very

often take film of people who are prominent citizens from other places

for cooperation and in order to assist the kind of economic discussions

that go on between our countries. One particular one is a film that was

done in China to emphasize our Pacific Rim contacts. It wasn't done

through this ministry, but Jack Munro was in that film, and perhaps

that might be something that you would be concerned with as well.

I want you to know that I do have the answer now on the "Say It With

Music" film. It was produced by Jem for use by the Premier on his trip

to China, and it was designed to show the province to an interested

audience, replacing narrative with music. It was well received. It has

been used very effectively since then by official missions to China and

other foreign countries. It was produced by Jem and contracted by this

ministry. I'm sorry I didn't recognize the name of that film, but I

think I did see the very beginning of it. It had a unique treatment

inasmuch as it was all done by music, showing the people of our

province in settings we wish to promote in the Pacific Rim, and

enhanced, of course, by the incredible scenery of British Columbia. As

you know, it's very easy to make a film in British Columbia because of

the scenery. That is the answer to your "Say It With Music" one.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just wonder if the minister has any rules in

terms of what should be spent on dinners and entertaining

out-of-province guests or others on various occasions. Is there a sort

of basic set of guidelines on expenditure per person for dinners and

various events like that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The protocol office does have a formula,

and I've just sent for it. I'd be very glad to answer that question, or

I can give it to the member if he wants to put it on the order paper.

It's a formula that has been established over a long period of time,

and it has guidelines as to how much should be spent.

MR. BARNES: I just want to ask the minister to perhaps give

me some assistance with a local problem in my constituency respecting

an application placed by Black Theatre West, which is a non-profit

society that applied for a casino licence early in April. On the 21st —

in about ten days; it was a pretty quick response — they received

approval for licence No. 55730 to conduct a series of events which were

to take place on May 12, 13 and 14 at the Fraser Arms Hotel. Everything

was going just fine, until they discovered on May 9 that there had been

a problem with double booking at the hotel. Panic, as you can imagine,

ensued. When they contacted the lottery branch about remedies to the

problem, they were advised that they should arrange another date with

the hotel, which they did and secured June 9, 10 and 11 as alternative

dates.

However, the branch took another look at the application. I should

point out that one other thing agreed upon at the time of setting the

new date was that the licence that had been issued would remain in

force, so that all that would have been required was that Black Theatre

West submit a letter stating the new dates, and no other problems were

anticipated. However, the branch apparently is looking at the

applicant's qualifications with regard to the licence. Apparently this

is not the first time this society has received a licence. They

received a raffle licence in 1983, I understand. They have been

operating as a non-profit society, sponsoring the Junior Black

Achievement Awards, among many other worthy community events, for the

past five years. But they were being questioned by the branch with

respect to their qualifications under the Society Act. This is a

question that concerns me. I happen to know that this is a society

registered in the province of British Columbia and in possession of a

federally issued tax number, which they make available to people who

are making donations to it. As you know, June 9, 10, 11 are not that

far away — next week — so there is some urgency and an understandable

concern by the society because they're attempting to promote this

series of events and will require time to set this up. Of course

everyone is concerned. I'm wondering if you could look into that matter

and clarify it for them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be very pleased to look into the

situation, and depending on when I get out of here today, I'll make a

phone call to do that.

While I'm on my feet, I offer my personal congratulations to the

first member for Vancouver Centre, who has contributed so greatly to

the sports field and will be recognized tomorrow night. I will be there

to help honour you, along with the many people who will be there to pay

tribute to your achievements. I'm really happy to hear from the first

member for Vancouver Centre. He was my critic when I was in my other

ministry and I would have missed him if he hadn't gotten to his feet

today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it would be difficult for one to miss

the first member for Vancouver Centre, and the Chair doesn't miss him

at this time.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I presume there were no

aspersions being cast by those remarks from the Chair to suggest that I

am in some way distinguished by other than my honourable position in

the House.

I want to thank the Provincial Secretary for her response to this

matter. I just received a phone call from one of the executive members

of that board who was very upset. I'm sure she'll be pleased to know

that every effort will be made to deal with the matter as expeditiously

as possible.

I do wish to debate some other matters with the minister, but as my

colleagues were courteous enough to allow me to

[ Page 8516 ]

intercede in order to bring this matter before the House at the

earliest possible time, I will now take my seat and wait my turn before

I come back to deal with some other matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair actually was referring to the

member's presence as a member of this House.

[4:00]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question to the

minister, please. It relates to a particular application from the

lottery fund about which I wrote to the minister on Match 12 and to

which I have received no reply. It deals with an application by the

Kitwanga native Indian band in the community of Kitwanga, B.C. The

prelude to the letter was a series of telephone conversations with Mr.

Orchard, who advised that that was shortly after the minister had been

reappointed as Provincial Secretary, that they had a number of matters

to deal with and hadn't been able to set a time and have a meeting to

deal with lottery fund applications. So I took the course of writing to

the minister. I suppose what I need to ask is, what happened to that

application?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm not familiar.... I'm so sorry to

hear that there's a March letter left unanswered. I'll certainly look

into it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to go back to some concerns with

regard to the present regulations on bingo that have just been

presented by the minister and to refer the minister to a number of

sections within those regulations. We had discussed an earlier

section

regarding an

interpretation of the word "charitable." The minister did

take the concerns that I had addressed at that time.

To move on to another section,

section 2.07 in the present

regulations reads: "The licensee will disburse the charitable funds

raised through the operation of the lottery directly to the charitable

objects set out in the application." One question I had, which is a

concern I raised in my December 9 letter to the previous minister, was

that under that

section there is no time limitation for the

disbursement of charitable funds. Obviously that recommendation was not

acted on, and I'd like to ask the minister at this time why that has

been.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't have the answer to that. I would

think that the implication of these regulations always has been that

there would be an immediate turnover. I would think that in most cases

the charitable organizations themselves govern the collection of those

funds. New in these regulations is that somebody from the charitable

organization shall always be present in the operation, and I would

think that we would be able to at least let it be known to them that

frequent collections, rather than having a bank account building up and

then turned over with the benefit of interest being given to the

operator.... We could certainly suggest that.

I frankly think that they themselves, wanting the dollars so much

and wanting the interest on those moneys if they're in the bank for any

length of time or for a short time even, will be guided by that

themselves. The point is well taken, and it could have been included in

that, that it should be turned over by a certain time. What is proper

time for those of us to guess would be a question that might be up for

dispute. Perhaps they themselves would rather further hasten the

payment, and I think they have that authority because they are so close

to those operations at the grass roots.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't think the implication is implicit

within the statement. In fact, it's wide open. I would suggest to the

minister that that is an area that maybe should be monitored in the

future.

Moving on to

section 2.08, it reads: "Except where the minister

specifically authorizes, all lottery-generated funds will be disbursed

within the province of British Columbia." A concern that I addressed

earlier is that there is no assurance that a percentage of the money

generated within a community would be disbursed within that same

community, but the regulations completely overlook that fact. One of

the major concerns that we have in the interior is that moneys raised

through these activities — bingos and casinos — actually be put to work

within the communities. Now in many cases, I grant you, they are; but

in some situations that money can go outside of the community within

the framework of these regulations. I wonder if the minister would like

to comment.

HON. MRS, McCARTHY: For some organizations that are raising

money for research, for example — for heart, cancer or whatever — they

would have to go out of the community because they wouldn't have a

research facility in their own community. That would be one example. I

can only say that regulation 2.08 is used infrequently. It's used, for

example.... The one that comes to mind the quickest is research,

where there is something done, perhaps, in Toronto which will be of

benefit in the research to people in British Columbia. Once in a while

that will be done. It's infrequently used, but it's there to protect us

so that we are able to use it when the need arises.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Moving on to item 3.04 in the same

regulations, this is probably the item that comes closest to addressing

the concern that I have in regard to rental of a facility for bingos.

Within the framework of the present regulations there is no minimum

regulation for health and safety standards as a prerequisite to the

registration of commercial halls, and there is no requirement for such

halls to provide access to the handicapped as a prerequisite for

registration — again a concern that I had addressed earlier, a concern

that doesn't seem to have been acted on. I wonder if the minister would

comment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be very pleased to take the member's

concerns, and I thank him for his concern. I haven't got an answer for

you. They are not embodied in this. I will certainly take it under

consideration.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The next

section that I would like to

address.... It's difficult trying to relate the new regulations to

the old ones. Sometimes the numbers are not quite the same.

In the regulations, it does appear that the aggregate value of the

prizes does seem to be too large and the charitable component — that

is, that money that is going to charities — small relative to the

overall value of the prizes. Now the minister has in the new casino

regulations increased the charitable component from 35 percent to 50

percent. But in the regulations pertaining to the amount going to

charity under bingos, there seems to be a sliding scale that.... I

am just trying to find the particular section. Depending upon the gross

proceeds, it goes to a maximum contribution of 25

[ Page 8517 ]

percent when the proceeds in a licence year exceed $60,000 or 20

percent if the gross proceeds exceed $20,000 but are not as much as

$60,000. It is a sliding scale from 25 percent down to 20 percent and

15 percent.

The suggestion that I had made at that time is that the charitable

component, that money which is actually getting into the hands of

charity, is too low; that it needs to be increased. The minister has

recognized this factor when looking at the casino regulations. Why

hasn't the minister recognized this concern regarding the bingo

regulations, and why has the minister not seen fit to increase the

charitable component relative to the gross proceeds of the function?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it simply reflects the fact

that there is a larger disparity. There are larger and smaller bingo

operations, and they are more consistent in the other.... That is

just because of the simple fact that there are some small operations

which, if you had the same ratio, wouldn't make any money at all for

the charities. So that's all that that is in there for, and why it is

that way.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I am not quite sure whether that actually

addresses the question head on. I quite realize that there are

different sizes of operations. But it does seem to be in most cases

that a lot of the money in terms of organizations that now have to rent

from commercial facilities is going into the hip pockets of the hall

owners, those individuals who rent the hall. Much of the profit is

being bled off by these high rental rates.

As a matter of fact, quite often the charity that is putting on the

bingo is in a net loss situation. After paying for the high rent of the

hall and the overhead costs attendant with running the games, there is

very little, and often nothing, left over for the charity.

My concern is that these regulations don't address that matter. The

operators are allowed to charge what I think are exorbitant rates for a

hall rental: $300 to $500 an evening, depending upon when it is run.

When you have to pay that stringent overhead cost, there is very little

left over to give to the charity. That's been the concern right from

the outset.

The reason the organizations are having to use the commercial halls

is because the capacity and the design of the halls allows them quite

frankly to out-compete the old church basement bingos, and they are

either put out of business or forced to use the commercial facility. If

they are being forced to use the commercial facilities — which I

suggest they are, or they just don't operate — then they are being

forced to pay very large amounts: $300 to $500 a day for the rental of

that facility.

The point I am trying to make very clearly to the minister is that

much of the profit, much of the funding that could be going to the

charities, is being evaporated in terms of the profits being taken by

the renters of these facilities.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, two observations I

had made.... The whole idea of the regulations regarding bingo does

benefit the charities. The benefit accrues to the charities because of

the regulations that were announced.

Secondly, in regard to halls, I am given to understand that the

competition for halls is very keen, and that competition will keep the

price down. People will be able to move from one hall to another if the

rent gets too high, and that is the freedom that they have to choose.

[4:15]

I don't think that you want us to get into dictating the amount of

rents for those kinds of commercial operations. They are free to seek

out the best deal, and experience seems to show that the competition is

so keen that they indeed do.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have to disagree with the minister's

statement. The competition is certainly high in terms of competition

for the bingo dollar, but what is happening — and I reiterate this — in

the communities in my constituency, at least, is that many of the

smaller bingo operations that used to run out of their own facility, or

have even banded together to run head on against the commercial

facilities, are having a devil of a time paying the overhead costs that

are required to run the type of facility. They've either gone under

because the commercial halls are drawing too much business away from

them, or they've had to actually rent from the halls. If they choose to

rent from the halls, then much of the profits that were going directly

to the charity are evaporating. They're no longer going to the charity,

but they're being diverted into the hip pockets of the commercial

establishments. I think this is the situation that you'll find

happening all throughout British Columbia, where many of the small

organizations that used to run their own small halls are simply being

put out of business because of the higher drawing power and the

advertising power of these commercial halls. The minister might argue

that it's the free market working at its best, but I remind the

minister of her own statement that bingos and casino-type operations

are not to be run as a profit-seeking business. Their initial spirit

was for fund raising for charities, and we should adhere to that

original principle. What is happening is to the detriment of that

principle at this point.

Just in going over a few other sections with regard to bingos, I

wonder if the minister can tell me how many bingo inspectors are now in

the field and actively involved in regulation of the commercial halls.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There are about 12, and we do intend to

increase them.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen the regulations,

and it may be that this question has been dealt with, but I understand

that there was a regulation that to be a licensee one would have to

have been registered as a society for a period of a year. I'm thinking

that there have been a large number of charitable organizations and

sports organizations acting as licensees in the past, and I wonder

whether there's any provision — sort of a grandfather clause — to allow

those organizations to register as a society and then to carry on?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In point 2.01 in the regulations it does

say that the organization has to be registered for a minimum of 12

months preceding the application and be in good standing at the time of

application under the Society Act, and in addition: "...can

substantiate with supportive documentation, to the satisfaction of the

PGCB, the contribution and service rendered to the community for a

minimum of 12 months prior to the application...."

One comes to mind that was brought to me in the last couple of days,

where an organization had been doing a lot of good work over many

years, actually — a very long time — but realized that they had to

become an organized society under the Society Act in order to apply and

therefore only then did they make that application. If you adhere to

the strict

[ Page 8518 ]

part (

a) of that, they would have been excluded and it would be very

unfair, so it opens that up now.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I have just one issue that I'd

like to talk to the minister about, and it relates to the proposed

Campbell River museum. I'm sure the minister is aware — she has talked

to Morgan Ostler and Stephanie Tipple and other people in Campbell

River about the proposal — that the proposal is for an approximately $3

million facility. All but approximately $400,000 or $500,000 of the

funding of this facility was identified and available, given provincial

participation. Much of the federal moneys that were promised to be made

available were contingent upon the province demonstrating its support

by contributing financially. As I say, it's a $3 million project.

Between the private sector and various federal agencies, $2.6 million or

thereabouts was pledged. The remaining approximately $400,000 or so was

initially applied for under the lotteries branch. I guess it must be

more than two years ago that the initial application was put in.

Despite frequent requests and frequent lobbying on my part and other

members of the society, nothing happened and no lottery money was

forthcoming.

The government through the current Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) advised the society that

they should switch their application from lotteries to the legacy fund,

which they did. A lot of this happened prior to the end of the last

fiscal year, which is when the federal money could well have run out.

As I understand, it's still likely to be available, but it won't last

forever. The money is no doubt going to be diverted to other funding,

should provincial money not be forthcoming. The only provincial source

at the present time appears to be the legacy fund. The application has

been in for some time. Members of the society have been down to lobby

the minister and other members of the government, including the former

minister, with a view to having that particular application approved.

I just want to say to the minister that in her opening comments in

these estimates she made much of the value of cultural activities, and

if she argues that cultural resources and cultural facilities such as

world-class museums, such as is being proposed in Campbell River, are a

boon to the tourist industry, she has my full support if she makes that

argument. I think that particular project is very important to the

tourism industry, not only in Campbell River but also on Vancouver

Island.

Curiously in this case, for an expenditure of $400,000 or

thereabouts, the government could generate revenues in construction

alone, in terms of tax revenues — personal income tax, sales tax and

the like — in excess of its contribution. The taxes that would accrue

to the Crown, not only directly but indirectly, in the period of the

construction phase alone would, I think, more than pay the provincial

government's contribution. But certainly because of the increased

employment over the years with such a museum in Campbell River, the

Crown would be paid back many times over. So would the tourist industry

on Vancouver Island and so would the tourist operators in that area.

I don't understand why it is that this particular application has

had to wait several years when the concept appears to have the support

of everybody; it is opposed by virtually nobody that I can discover.

It's a project that generates revenue to the Crown; a project that

sucks some money out of eastern Canada, both private and public, which

I think is a useful thing whenever we can do that; and is a project

that will be of great value not only to the community as a cultural

resource but also to the tourism industry on Vancouver Island. Why is

it that we can't get the small amount requested of the provincial

government for this project?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: May I first address, before I address the

member who has just taken his place.... For the record, I see the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) is not here, but he did ask a

question regarding rents. I want to clarify that, because there is such

a discrepancy between large bingos and small operations on the

availability for charities. For the bigger organizations, costs are 60

percent in prizes, which leaves 25 percent available for charity —

which takes the 85 percent. Therefore a big organization can spend up

to 15 percent for their overhead, including rent, but no more. And

that's one of the checks we have on them. But for a smaller group,

using the same formula, costs could be 60 percent in prizes and 15

percent to charity, for a total of 75 percent. Therefore smaller

organizations cannot spend more than 25 percent on overheads, otherwise

they would cut down on the contribution to their own. I thought I

should make that clear.

May I now address the very major and very exciting proposal from

Campbell River. I was there and had a presentation from them; I saw

their model; I was to visit the site. It is a very worthwhile community

effort. It can be done in three phases, as you have suggested, and I

think that's part of their plan. It is very exciting indeed. I'm most

supportive of the program. They did have such a large amount.... I

believe that in the beginning they wanted to do it all at once — at

least, that was my impression — and it did seem to fit more comfortably

under the Expo legacy fund. I believe that it has been sent to the Expo

legacy committee, and as a member of that committee I look forward to

discussing it.

Frankly I think that in all of these proposals where they are also

leaning on federal government contributions, the federal government

will — as we would if it were reversed.... Once we were committed

to a project, we would surely not let the money dry up while waiting

for yet another government.... Funnily enough, it never happens

that way. It is usually that we are trying to fulfil a promise made by

the federal administration. But at any rate, we have it under

consideration. It is a very exciting plan, and most members of our

legacy committee actually have visited the site, so I think they are

well aware of it. They have done an excellent job, just an excellent

job of putting it together, and I commend the volunteer groups that

have all pulled together as a unit. It has been an outstanding

community effort.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It sounds so good, I am sorry you are out of

order. It's Ministry of Education. Keep going.

MR. GABELMANN: Ministry of Education?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, legacy fund. It's a good story, so carry

on.

MR. GABELMANN: It's been in the hands of the Provincial

Secretary for so long that it is hard to extract it from that ministry.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the community has not only

come up with a great plan and an exciting facility proposed, but they

have also come up with a lot of dollars. I don't know what the current

total is at the moment, but it was

[ Page 8519 ]

well over $300,000 worth of local contributions. From a community

the size of Campbell River, that's pretty outstanding and, I think,

demonstrates the support of the people there.

But my question is again to the minister, I guess in her capacity as

one of the members of the legacy fund. Now I have to do it that way.

It's been in front of the legacy committee for months and months, ever

since the legacy fund was first established. It went long before this

fiscal year — we're talking now February or March at least before it

left the lottery and went into the legacy. I think it was even before

that. I know that I have been pursuing it with the one staff person

there for some months now. They want to start doing something, and I

would like to know when can they expect an announcement as to yes or no

to this application.

HON. MR. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, you have very rightly

pointed out that the legacy committee is under the Ministry of

Education. I could not give that information for timing.

MR. GABELMANN: Well then, because the legacy fund appears

unable to make decisions — it hasn't for some months now made any

decisions — can I ask the minister, would it be appropriate for me to

suggest to the people involved that this should go back to the

lotteries branch for an application under that program?

[4:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, I would think that you can do

whatever you want, but may I just say that it is an unfair criticism of

the Expo legacy fund to say that they have been dragging their feet.

They did not get that application, I don't think, until I would say

April 15, somewhere around there. I may be wrong and out a week or two,

but I was in that constituency and saw their proposal, and I think it

was after that that it came to the legacy fund.

So I don't think you should be too critical of the legacy fund. They

have a lot of proposals, and you yourself said it was a very large

proposal, $3 million plus, a lot of money, and we should consider that

it would take some consideration for them to approve a grant of that

kind. We must give some time for the proposal to go through the

committee stages. As I say. I can't give you a time, and it really is

not for this ministry right now to discuss. It may well come back to

this ministry, and if it does I will be very glad to answer those

questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think the committee has allowed

adequate latitude on this, and I will have to ask all members to return

to the vote of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to talk to the Provincial Secretary

about this. Sometimes when a group is told to move from one area to

another, there is obviously an overlap, and that is what we've got here

in this case.

The application to the legacy fund went in when the minister was

Minister of Human Resources, so it is longer ago than the middle of

April. I think it was before the year. I think it was still in 1985

when that happened. So I would like her to know that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, that may well be the case, and I am

prepared to accept that because there is some sense to that. But

members of the society come to me and say: "What's your advice about

the quickest way we can get money from the government?" I have to give

them some advice. I guess, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the minister,

would it be her advice, since it appears the legacy fund is designed to

promote election victories in the next campaign, that it is likely

that...?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. First

of all, the legacy committee is not within my responsibility as

minister responsible for Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

Secondly, the wording of the member's question is, frankly, very much

out of order. The Expo legacy committee and fund — although I really

shouldn't even be discussing it; neither should he — is set up to

respond to the legacy of Expo 86 throughout the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair recognizes it's not

within the estimates of the minister, and that other explanations would

not be in order.

MR. GABELMANN: It's my assumption that the legacy fund money

won't be granted until we have an election on the horizon. Therefore

I'm wanting to ask the minister what the best advice is that we can

give to the members of this society as to where that application should

go. Should it come back to the lottery fund, and will money be

available through lotteries, as it appears to be for facilities on the

North Shore and in other parts of this province? Will money of that

magnitude be available from lotteries for this particular project if

the application is redirected?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If you're asking my opinion, I think they

were given very good advice. I'm certainly not going to give them

advice as to what they should do with their application at this point

in time. I think they were given good advice to take it to the Expo

legacy committee. That's my opinion. I think it was good advice. It's

there and it's before that committee. I think other good advice would

be that the member would allow the process to take place, knowing full

well that it will be given good consideration.

MR. STUPICH: I have some correspondence from an old friend of

mine and an old friend of the minister's — although not a political

friend of mine — a person who sat in the House as the MLA for Nanaimo

for a short time. It raises a question about annuities. He's written a

couple of letters to the Hon. Michael Wilson expressing concern about

proposed legislation federally that would allow annuitants to collapse

their annuities, and would then make the funds therein vulnerable to

attack by creditors, as annuities are protected.

In the course of his correspondence he learned that British Columbia

and New Brunswick are out of step with other Canadian provinces in that

they are the only two provinces that would not continue protection for

annuitants in the event that they do collapse annuities and reinvest

them. I wonder if the minister has any comment on this. Is the minister

aware that British Columbia and New Brunswick are out of step with the

rest of Canada in this regard, and if there is that awareness, are

there some plans to do something about it?

[ Page 8520 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I want to thank the member for Nanaimo,

for giving me advance notice that he would be bringing up this subject.

He is correct that British Columbia doesn't presently have pension

benefit standards legislation, although we have discussed the matter on

many occasions and over a very long period of time. Although the

legislation in other jurisdictions is not identical, there is a good

deal of similarity, so it is likely that if we produced legislation it

would be somewhat similar to that which you have quoted in other

jurisdictions.

We do have staff working on pension benefits legislation; it has

been discussed, will be discussed further and will be worked on. I

would like to assure the member that we appreciate that there are a

number of people out there, including a former hon. member of this

House, who are very concerned. Thank you so much for bringing it to the

House. I will keep in contact with you regarding the future of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to raise the question of the problems

of people along the SkyTrain right-of-way through Vancouver and the

other communities that it passes through. The health department in

Vancouver has looked closely at the question of noise levels. Noise

levels have exceeded the promised levels by this administration and

their various spokespersons, so that it is indeed a health problem;

that is, the noise level exceeds what the city department of health

considers reasonable.

I would suggest to the minister that in those circumstances the

reasonable thing to do would be to look at some specific proposals that

have been put forth by the city and by some of the citizens. Some of

the buildings are very close to the right-of-way. The buildings that

are most impacted — I would think a handful of them — should probably

be bought, because they are very impacted. They have serious problems

and potential serious health problems. But that's a relative handful of

buildings.

There are others that are still impacted quite a bit, and what

should probably be done with those is to provide double glazing or new

glazing for those buildings that are impacted. There are others that

have their views impacted and their privacy affected, and a range of

ameliorating things can be done for them, such as fencing, some

improved planting and so on. In some cases, berms could be provided as

well. I don't think those are huge capital costs, and probably for an

expenditure of about $2 million or so the worst-affected people along

the right-of-way could at least have their problems ameliorated to some

extent.

I am asking the minister if she is prepared to meet with the

affected groups along the right-of-way, and whether she is prepared to

look at some modest, ameliorating capital funding to deal with the

worst problems in terms of noise and privacy and the like.

I've mentioned to the minister that I think the planning along the

line has been a benefit to the whole community, and I know that her

activity in that regard, and her energy, has resulted in benefit for

the whole community. I commend her for that, not only in private but in

public.

All I'm suggesting is that the flowers should be a little higher,

the trees should be a little thicker, the windows should be thicker,

and the odd property should be acquired, because there is the odd

property along there that really is pretty harshly affected. As I

said, I don't think there are a lot of them, but there are probably

half a dozen or more that have been very seriously affected, and it

would be reasonable to look at those.

Double-glazing would have a tremendous effect for a lot of people

along that right-of-way, and I don't think that's unreasonable. In view

of the fact that the noise levels exceed what was anticipated, that

might well be the reasonable thing to, do.

I'm not asking for a commitment from the minister at this stage

other than whether she is willing to carry on a dialogue with those

affected people and citizen groups from various parts of the area:

Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There has been quite a bit of work done

already, and B.C. Transit management also received a report on the

noise levels from the city of Vancouver. That happened on March 14,

based on measurements made between February 12 and 20, and a similar

study was conducted by the district of Burnaby in February and early

March. I understand that at that time management were aware that

individual trains were exceeding the specified noise levels of 74

decibels 15 metres from a four-car train at 80 kilometres per hour on

elevated track.

They directed our contractor, Metro Canada Ltd., to take action in

January. Engineering design resulted in changes to the tracks and to

the wheels on all cars. The retrofit program started in March, and at

the time that this report was given to me, May 22, some 50 percent of

it was completed. Now that is not very long ago. Completion is expected

by the end of this month, June. In addition, the operating company has

commenced withdrawing any trains from service at the earliest

opportunity if they develop wheel flats, which is their terminology for

a flat wheel, making the noise much more profound. We're also

investigating other methods of noise mitigation in conjunction with the

operating company. A lot of work is being done, and it goes on apace.

We do expect significant improvements in noise levels by June of this

year, and we're also evaluating mitigation measures at the source that

will further reduce noise and improve the system.

When the measurement is again taken in June, when the completion of

this program is done, I think you will find a significant change. We

believe that this will have a great effect, actually.

[4:45]

I thank you for the comments regarding the parkway. In that heavily

built-up area, where one million people live along that line, I think

we can concede that we have left it better than we found it, in the

right-of-way that we took over, in most cases. Whenever you build a

rapid transit system you cannot say that you're not going to have any

impact whatsoever. You're bound to have some impact. When one compares

other traffic corridors, SkyTrain is less noisy but carries far more

passengers. The benefits to the three municipalities as well as

Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster far exceed any of the impact

that SkyTrain has had.

In terms of contributing to a mobile, liveable city just in itself,

a city that is overcoming traffic jams because we are riding above the

traffic jams has, I think, had a tremendous impact on our city and the

two other communities in which SkyTrain travels. It has increased

property values by far around the stations, including the city-owned

land which will benefit — and there is quite a bit of city-owned land.

There is a possibility for the city of Vancouver and the community of

Burnaby and New Westminster, which already has used some

[ Page 8521 ]

of that city land, to assist in adding to the attractiveness of that

line.

We will continue to work to reduce the noise in the most effective

way at the source, and I hope that in the next month particularly we

will find a vast improvement. I have to say that compared with the

noisy Kingsway, a traffic corridor like Kingsway, this carries far more

passengers than Kingsway would, and in the future has the capability of

carrying far more passengers. There is no question that this is a less

noisy corridor than