[ Page 5319 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

(Bill PR402). Mr. Ree.

Introduction and first reading –– 5319

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 5319

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5320

Mr. Lauk

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

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

On vote 164: minister's office –– 5321

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Davis

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. King

Mr. Kempf

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Barber

Mr. Levi

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Marketing Board annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5343

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce a visitor to the House who was a long-time resident of Vancouver but who has now moved to the city of Victoria. This is her first visit to the legislative building. Will the House please welcome Mrs. Billie Crost.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, "Reach for the Top" is a television show on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which has competition among senior secondary school students from both the public and the independent sector. This year and last year our provincial government has been a co-sponsor of the program, encouraging students to exhibit excellence in their scholastic ability, which would show up in the quiz program.

This year the winning school in British Columbia is Kamloops Secondary School, which won the British Columbia competition against the other semi-finalist, West Vancouver Secondary School. Kamloops will be representing British Columbia in the national finals on May 2 at Cornerbrook, Newfoundland.

I would ask the House to extend congratulations to the winning team, who are present in the Speaker's gallery today. The members are Tony Ryan, Jim Wold, Steve Rees and Claudia Priest. They're accompanied by their principal, Mr. Gordon Lloyd, and coaches Terry Munson and Fred Persello. I would ask the House to welcome them as well.

A further note to do with the "Reach for the Top" winners: to encourage the teams, the government also has awarded annually a challenge trophy, known as the Premier's Cup, and a $1,500 cheque to the winner. Both will be presented to the winners in my office following question period today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would like to join with the Premier in congratulating the students from Kamloops who won this award. As you know, I lived in Kamloops for a number of years and my daughters went to school in Kamloops. As a matter of fact, my oldest daughter was born in Newfoundland where the Canadian finals will be held.

MR. BARRETT: I join in welcoming the students from Kamloops and wishing them every success in Kamloops, as many eyes are on Kamloops as well this day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In the precincts this afternoon is a group of 26 grade six students from General Gordon Elementary School in the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey, and they're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Stanton. I'd like hon. members to bid them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery this afternoon are several people from my constituency of Omineca. They are Mr. and Mrs. John Giesbrecht of Ootsa Lake, Mrs. and Mrs. Don Campbell, their daughter and son-in-law and their four children from Burns Lake. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the House to welcome today an old friend, Mr. Andrew Brewin, who was a long-time Member of Parliament for Toronto-Greenwood; he's now spending part of his vacation in the most beautiful province in Canada. He's with his granddaughter Gillian, who is about to be married. So I'd like you to welcome both Andrew and his granddaughter.

MR. STRACHAN: In the precincts today is a group of elementary students from Foothills Elementary School in Prince George. They're a great elementary choir, as a matter of fact, and they're down here attending a music competition. They're the Foothills Festival Kids. Their teacher is Miss Rose Loewen. I would ask all members to give them a nice warm welcome to the precincts.

Introduction of Bills

WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND
LIGHT COMPANY, LIMITED, ACT, 1897.
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill PR402, West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

MR. HALL: I was going to ask some questions of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), but I see she's not in her seat again today, so I shall have to defer the questions.

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Mr. Ron Basford, the very high-profile B.C. representative for coal development in the northeast, indicated the other day that prairie farmers and the CNR are going to be subsidized by B.C. Rail, by agreements entered into by the Social Credit government. Can the minister now confirm whether or not they have the final figures that BCR has promised in reduction of their rail rate to Teck and Denison on the development? Is it still $1 a tonne?

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

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister advise the House whether it's part of Mr. Basford's responsibility to negotiate freight rates for BCR? If that's not part of his responsibilities, would he tell the House what Mr. Basford's responsibilities are, other than issuing press releases?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is somewhat facetious. He read the press release and he knows full well that Mr. Basford was addressing a transportation seminar. It was very well stated by Mr. Basford in that press release — and that's why I say the question is facetious — that indeed it was not his responsibility to negotiate freight rates for the coal companies, either with British Columbia Railway or with Canadian National Railways.

[ Page 5320 ]

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, Mr. Basford is clearly unhappy with the terms that B.C. must be receiving on BCR, given their subsidy, versus the rebate that CN is giving to Teck and Denison. In other words, it's about two to one: BCR is kicking in twice as much as CNR in rebate, in terms of freight rate. My question is: has the minister now given consideration to renegotiating those freight rates with Teck and Denison, given the fact that the taxpayers of British Columbia are now about to subsidize those BCR rates, apparently for the benefit of CNR and prairie farmers?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I should try to straighten him out on a couple of things. First of all, the freight rate negotiated by British Columbia Railway to haul coal from the great northeast development will see British Columbia Railway and Canadian National Railways not only recover the cost of transporting the coal but room for a return on their investment and a profit. The member knows full well that Mr. Basford was discussing the Crowsnest rate for hauling grain. It has been British Columbia's and this government's position for a number of years that commodities such as lumber, coal and other products produced in British Columbia are paying for the movement of grain off the Prairies. That's why we feel very strongly that the Crow rate should be renegotiated. That has been my position in representing this government at various meetings in Winnipeg. If the member did his homework and found out what was going on in this province and in western Canada, he would realize just how facetious his question is.

MR. LEGGATT: On March 18 in this House the minister stated that BCR freight rates moving northeast coal will be reduced from $4.88 to $3.88 a tonne. He also stated that the reduction in the CN rate will also be $1 a tonne, but their tonne rate is $10. BCR is giving twice the rebate that CN is. My simple question is: why are we getting hosed in terms of B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I wish the member for Coquitlam-Moody would use question period to ask questions and not to make statements which he knows are not true. As I have stated before in this question period, the freight rate negotiated for coal allows both Canadian National Railway and British Columbia Railway to recover their costs and indeed make a profit.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. A few months ago the minister successfully stalled the opposition to the existence of the Ku Klux Klan by the public generally when he promised to commission a one-man study into the activities of the Ku Klux Klan. That commissioner was Mr. John McAlpine, who, I understand, submitted his report last week to the minister. I'm wondering if the minister at this time has decided to table the full contents of that study, which he now has in his possession.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't recall the time when we asked Mr. McAlpine to prepare a report for the government as being a few months ago. It seems to me like it was more like a few weeks ago. I think the problem is well known to most members in the assembly. The provisions of the Human Rights Code, as well as the Criminal Code of Canada, are not adequate to address the problem with respect to hate literature and the various things for which the Ku Klux Klan is responsible. To fully inform the members opposite, it was my wish to appoint a board of inquiry. It didn't make any difference where I turned to get legal support as to whether or not we would be successful in appointing a board in the ensuing hearing. At the time I thought it might be worthwhile to appoint a board so there would at least be a venue for all of us who were concerned to express their views. The considered opinion was the appointment of someone knowledgeable in this area who would submit to government a report covering a number of areas.

The first draft of that report was given to me last week, at which time I had a rather lengthy meeting with Mr. McAlpine. By Mr. McAlpine's own admission, that particular report must be thoroughly canvassed by me and my colleagues, and after due deliberation the matter of distribution of that report will be made.

To make it clear — I don't want to leave the impression with any members opposite or my own colleagues that I'm sitting on something which arrived in draft form only last week — it should be remembered that the initiative to have this report prepared and to look at the deficiencies of the Human Rights Code — which I might remind the House was a bill introduced by the members opposite when they were government — takes some time. I don't intend to be panicked and precipitate anything which is really not relevant or helpful to those who we want to help at this time.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. The minister used the expression "own admission," giving rise to the suspicion that Mr. McAlpine submitted a final report that the minister wishes to redraft. Can the minister comment on the use of the words "own admission"?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Perhaps my use of the words "own admission" didn't accurately describe what occurred. What Mr. McAlpine said was that the minister requesting this report to be conducted is going to require some time to canvass all the matters which are raised. I can assure you that under no circumstances is there anything with respect to a redraft. This is a serious matter. I have no intention whatsoever of being badgered with those kinds of comments.

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

Mr. McAlpine was here last week with a completed report and presented it to the minister. The minister now informs us that he's not satisfied with the way it's drafted, and he's going to circulate it among his colleagues before it's released. If the minister did not feel that the information that may or may not be obtained by such an inquiry into the Ku Klux Klan is worthy of public scrutiny, why did he order the inquiry in the first place?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I suspect that the member opposite is reading from prepared notes, and some of his questions are probably somewhat orchestrated right now.

The fact of the matter is that the report came to me, and I advise the House unequivocally that when it came in it was examined by me and by my officials. There were also some

[ Page 5321 ]

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

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Attorney-General. In light of the Ku Klux Klan organizers advocating race war and threatening violence in British Columbia, has the Attorney-General decided to investigate the Ku Klux Klan under section 281(1) and 281(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Investigations with respect to incidents within the purview of the Criminal Code are done by the police forces in this province. As I have advised this House on many previous occasions, throughout the length and breadth of this province all detachments in the police forces and members of the Crown counsel staff have been alerted to ensure that investigations take place with regard to any incidents which may offend against the Code in this particular respect.

MR. LAUK: We thank the Attorney-General for that general reassurance that the police forces are indeed acting in accordance with their historical job description. However, in this case we see no investigation or prosecution against KKK leaders who have recently advocated the acquisition of arms and have predicted a race war in the province of British Columbia. If the Attorney-General is aware of those statements made by Ku Klux Klan leaders, has he asked whether the police have fulfilled their historical duty and investigated under the Code?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The incident to which the hon. member refers is one of the matters which are a continuing investigative responsibility of the police. The answer to the member's question is certainly yes.

HOUSING CORPORATION OF B.C.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Last year the minister refused to reactivate the B.C. Housing Corporation, saying that other programs would be sufficient to solve the housing crisis in B.C., but during this year the crisis has worsened. As the minister knows, demolitions and conversions of existing rental stock are accelerated this year, and the average real estate listings have doubled in the metropolitan area in one year. Has the minister now decided to reactivate the Housing Corporation to assist in solving this horrendous crisis?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member doesn't read the press, because housing starts in British Columbia in 1980 were 25 percent of all the starts in Canada. Construction on 37,600 homes was started during 1980.

The member talks about demolitions. I want him to know, in case he's not aware, that that is a municipal responsibility and no responsibility of my ministry.

He talks about reactivating the B.C. Housing Corporation. The answer is no, and the reason the answer is no is because it was a disaster while it was in place for a period of almost five years. It managed to produce about 1,300 units of housing, mostly through acquisitions, private developments, that were made through the private sector. They didn't construct very many units. I want to tell you that the housing initiative program, which was initiated by this government last year, produced over 5,000 units of housing. Those are the kinds of initiatives we should be looking forward to rather than to reactivate the discredited B.C. Housing Corporation.

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

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I apologize to hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that I was not able to introduce at the appropriate time this afternoon. I'd like to introduce a group of students from la belle province as well as from the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. We have an exchange group from Quebec visiting with students of Stelly's Secondary School. The House perhaps would make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. NICOLSON: Just before the adjournment at 12 o'clock the minister indicated that he would respond to the three areas I had raised. I would ask if the minister is now prepared to respond to those questions.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member inquired about the current practice of hiring in British Columbia under the Public Service Commission which in the procedures manual provides preference to Canadians who were resident in British Columbia for one year prior to employment. He inquired about an individual who had been out of the province for three and a half years, and I presume was considered not eligible under those criteria.

I want to inform him that the Public Service Commission is currently looking at the guideline. I don't call it a regulation, because it's a part of the procedures manual. I'll be quite happy to look at that particular definition.

MRS. DAILLY: On the matter of lotteries, I think the former speaker was trying, this morning, to elicit from the minister some definitive answer on restructuring the guidelines and perhaps accepting the fact of an advisory committee. I think he knows why we're bringing this to his attention, although we're pleased, as the last member who spoke said, that he has made some positive changes in the handling of lotteries.

The biggest area that we're all concerned about is that there is still an opening for partisanship in the handing out of lottery funds. I think we'd be happy if we could hear a more definitive statement on the restructuring of the availability of grants to people. I hope he will reply further on that.

[ Page 5322 ]

I would like to ask a specific question of the minister right now regarding the matter of handing out lottery licences. I wonder if he would give us some idea of the guidelines that his ministry takes to approve whether groups can have them. Specifically, there are two rather high-profile groups that I know the minister is aware of who have been refused their request from the Lottery Fund. One was the Downtown Eastside Residents Association and the other was the Greenpeace Foundation. I wonder if the minister could tell us why these two apparently very worthwhile groups were refused a licence, and upon what guidelines his ministry operates when they hand out lottery licences.

HON. MR. WOLFE: With regard to the question raised this morning and again now by the member on lotteries grants, the guidelines for them, the policy and so on, there's been considerable refinement of that, as she mentioned. Some months ago I considerably extended the list of guideline requirements. There are some 16 guidelines. This was distributed to all members of the House at the time and is, incidentally, currently distributed with each application for a lotteries grant which goes out.

I think that what she's also referring to is the report of the ombudsman on this matter, which really — if I might just answer it in this way — comes down to two specific concerns which he had. One of them had to do with a provision in the act for an advisory committee. The second was the requirement to, let's say, formalize more the provision for guidelines on lotteries grants. In his report, if I can recall, the ombudsman went out of his way to indicate that there was no indication of partisanship. But he raised these two primary concerns. I can only say this: it was my view until now that we had satisfied these through the new, extended guidelines long before that report was received. His report has been received by executive council and is under consideration. I cannot really go any further than that at this point.

You mentioned the matter of the requirements for licensing of lottery distributorships and so on. I can come back to you on that in a moment.

MRS. DAILLY: I just hope that the minister himself can tell us that when he takes part in the cabinet discussions on the recommendations of the ombudsman and the other concerns that other citizens have expressed on the allocation of lottery grants, he would agree to a restructuring, so that we can have a non-partisan approach to the granting of lottery funds. I think we would all feel better if the minister would tell us that he's going to fight for that when the cabinet discusses it.

The minister did say that we're all aware and have all received guidelines for the handing out of lottery licences. I'm aware of those guidelines, and that's why I am asking the question. I wonder if the minister can tell the House specifically where the Greenpeace Foundation and Downtown Eastside Residents Association did not meet the guidelines. I went through the guidelines. I've checked some correspondence that came to me on it. I fail to see why these groups did not receive licences. That's all we're asking. We're only bringing it to the floor of the House, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that most people do receive their licences if they meet the guidelines. I went through their presentations, and I can't see where they didn't meet the guidelines. That's all we're asking. Could you answer that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I could go back to an earlier question that the member raised having to do with lotteries licensing. I think she referred in particular to licensing for distributors and referred to the case of Greenpeace, for instance. Greenpeace applied for a licence as a distributor of lottery tickets. They are already licensed to do ticket lotteries in a retail way and also to do bingos. In other words, they have considerable revenues through those capacities now under our system. They were not considered as eligible applicants under the application for a distributorship. There are quite a large quantity of distributorships across the province now. I forget the number — 260 across various regions in the province. The basic requirement — I don't have the list of their guidelines in front of me — is that they must be non-profit organizations and must be able to report to the branch that they expend a certain percentage of their funds on charitable objectives. If you wouldn't mind, would you repeat the last question you asked?

MRS. DAILLY: What you attempted to do there was to give me an answer as to why these two particular groups were refused. I gather that with Greenpeace you were saying it's because they already have at their disposal the means for raising funds. That knocks any group out — if they already have another means. I just want to get that straight, because as MLAs we all get people writing to us and hoping we can assist them in the guidelines. So I want to have it clear that if they have access to other licensing — bingo games and so on — they don't get a lottery licence. All I'm saying is that it must apply to all. I'm sure the minister appreciates that. That is a fact? All right. Basically, then, that applied to both of the questions that I had at this time on lotteries.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I just want to make a brief mention of lotteries as well, particularly since the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) raised the matter of licensing organizations for the purpose of distributing or selling lottery tickets on a wholesale basis. Frankly, I think that careful consideration ought to be given to the types of organizations that are granted these sorts of licences and the ways in which they spend the proceeds from the sale. I noticed Greenpeace and Downtown Eastside Residents Association were mentioned. I'm sure that both of these organizations have various fund-raising drives and that much of the money may go to very good causes. On the other hand, through you to the minister, Mr. Chairman, it disturbs me a little bit that somehow our guidelines are so broad as to allow political organizations to wholesale the lottery tickets. In my own constituency we have the New Democratic Party — as I understand they are possibly in one or two other constituencies — wholesaling these tickets, and the purposes given in their application for the distribution of the proceeds or profits is to promote the cause of socialism. Frankly, I think it would be much better if these moneys or the profits from this whole process, which the people of British Columbia, regardless of political philosophy, make possible, went to the Kinsmen, the Kiwanians, the Rotary Club or the Lions, who are noted for their many good works. They're not political, not in any way affiliated with any political party, and the proceeds go for a good cause. To see the New Democratic Party, the Social Credit Party, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party — it doesn't matter which, but it so happens the New Democrats are in the business — compete with all these worthwhile organizations and take the profits for the purpose of promoting socialism doesn't seem right somehow.

[ Page 5323 ]

I just don't believe this is right, and I would very much appreciate it if the minister and his staff would make a note of this and investigate this matter very carefully, because it's of concern to the people in my constituency. It's of concern to all the people who look towards some of the returns to carry forth their worthwhile projects. It's of concern to the Lions, the Kiwanians and the Rotarians who must stand next to the various sales outlets that are promoted by the NDP. I'm sure they will appreciate me raising it in the House during the minister's estimates, which is why I'm doing this, and I would perhaps hope that my bringing it forth may possibly make the New Democratic Party more aware as well that it's a hindrance to so many good causes which I'm sure all members would agree are far more needed and beneficial than to take profits provided through some public program and simply put it to the promotion of socialism.

MRS. DAILLY: I notice the minister is not answering specifically, and I just want to make a point with a question to the minister relative to what's just been said by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Apparently he's showing us today that he has to do his little political stint on the floor — his socialist-bashing — even when it comes to lottery tickets, because he has no clout in cabinet. He's so desperate he has to make this speech on the floor of the House. I'm sure his own cabinet minister doesn't agree with him or this would have been changed a long time ago. No other complaints have come, except from that socialist-bashing minister. He's the only one who's raising these complaints. I'm glad that the Provincial Secretary is far more broad-minded and flexible and doesn't have that same terrible bitterness towards those terrible socialists.

MR. DAVIS: I'd like to ask the minister a question which relates to statistics. Perhaps I might phrase it this way: why is it that the provincial government doesn't regularly publish the numbers of employees in the public service or make these numbers available to such sources as Statistics Canada or the Canadian Tax Foundation? The principal reason I wonder about it is that in recent years the record has been very good as to the total numbers; it's simply that the numbers are so difficult to come by. Canada-wide employment in the public service is now one out of five. There are over two million public servants employed in this nation out of 11 million total employees — men and women. The federal ministries employ about 350,000, the provincial ministries from coast to coast 450,000 and municipalities 400,000. There are some 300,000 teachers in the country and Crown corporations, and National Defence employs another 600,000, for some 2.1 million. That's a large figure, and it's a large figure in the context of 11 million.

I think we have to be concerned about the size of the public service and its growth, especially because it's growing, particularly at the federal level, faster than the number of employed in the nation. I've searched the statistics of Statistics Canada and I find that the federal government reports regularly. In most cases all provinces report except British Columbia, and usually the figure for B.C. is n.a. — not available. I wonder about that.

The Canadian Tax Foundation produces some very good statistics in considerable detail. The British Columbia column is blank. They make an estimate, obviously, to get a national total, but it's not reliable.

One other source, the Financial Post, occasionally produces figures. The only numbers they produce are dues-paying union members in the public service in British Columbia. The figure they had for 1978 was 34,000. The figure for 1980 was 46,000. I think perhaps that indicates that recruitment was up, rather than the number of employees. That's not an accurate indication of the number of employees in the B.C. public service.

I have a few numbers which I've obtained directly from the ministry, as a result of questions on the order paper. The number for March 31, 1976, was 39,139. The number for March 31, 1980 — four years later — was 39,350. There was virtually no change over a four-year period. Still, as I understand it, the only way I can get this number is to place a written question on the order paper. Employment overall in the province in that period was up more than 100,000. The public service, in other words, remained relatively constant; employment in the province was up substantially. In the last two years since 1979 it's up by nearly another 100,000. So we have a dramatic increase in total employment and little change in the public service employment. Going back to the NDP years the figures are: December 31, 1971 — 29,000; December 31, 1975 — 40,000. Essentially the employment of the public service increased by about one-third in the NDP years and has remained constant since then.

I would like to have some assurance from the minister that B.C. will be interested in reporting these statistics, at least on an annual basis, and giving us breakdowns as to male and female employees, how many are in executive capacities, how many are on a straight wage basis and so on. Essentially my question is: hopefully when will we know these statistics as a matter of publication by the government?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want to thank the member for his question. The answer is yes. I would ask that he provide me with the specific Statistics Canada report. I cannot understand why the figures wouldn't have been included. Perhaps they weren't available for that particular report. I'll certainly investigate it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we've been treated to a couple of very interesting statements. I'll deal with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in a moment or two.

I would like to deal with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and an assertion that he made. He gave a figure for 1971 of 29,000 and by 1975 it was 40,000. Let's do a little bit of analysis. I took over a huge department in 1972, the Department of Health. What did I find in that department? Employee after employee after employee with no permanent status and they weren't counted. So the NDP gave them permanent status. There were lots of people who had been working in the Department of Health for 20 years without permanent status. That's precisely what happened, and that was all through the entire public service.

Another thing: if you want to know why there has been very little increase in the number of employees from 1975 to 1979 — the figures the member was using — I would like that member to check to find out how many of those one-time public servants were transferred to Crown corporations. You have the entire ferry service who were public servants. You have the whole Public Works department.

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

[ Page 5324 ]

MR. COCKE: I know, but I don't like these assertions in the House that really misrepresent facts. That's all that I have to say about that.

In terms of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he knows that you have to qualify to get a right to sell lottery tickets. You get that right because you support a charitable organization. In Nanaimo, where they have a fair amount, they have provided senior citizens' housing, probably more so than this government in terms of percentage. Senior citizens' housing, scholarships, bursaries.... If there's any argument about it, why not tell the whole story? The whole story would be very interesting.

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

MR. COCKE: That minister, the most disappointing person here, always has to get up and make his leadership speech, normally when the Premier isn't in the House. That was disgraceful behaviour.

I'd like to discuss a question which I think is of great import to your ministry. Presently in Kamloops there is a by-election. You're in charge of the provincial elections branch. When that by-election was called, the Premier assured people that everything was in order. He'd been assured by the chief electoral officer, or one of his deputies, that everything up there was okay and ready to go for a by-election. The entire province is in a disgraceful state in terms of the registration of voters; any member of this House knows that. It's been 20 years since there has been a purging of the list and a re-enumeration. Normally it should happen in a static-list situation, which we have in this province, at least every 10 or 13 years — no longer than 13 years. The previous record was 13 years, I understand. Now we're going on 20 years without a proper re-enumeration and a purging of the list.

Why didn't we do it? You were government for some 30-odd years; we were government for three years and seven months. We tried to do everything we possibly could. We opened up registration. When that election in 1975 was going on we opened up registration as it had never been opened up before. I recall going to the office of the registrar of voters in 1975, and I watched members from Coquitlam taking not 25 registration forms — I'm talking about Socreds — but boxes of them to Coquitlam. I'm sure it happened all over the province. We said: "Go ahead. Register the folks who aren't registered." What are you doing now? You're lucky if you get 25 registration cards when you go to the registrar of voters.

Let me give you a specific case. We have just finished canvassing a number of polls. At one specific poll where every person was asked, "Are you a registered voter?" — and we'd check to find out if they were on the list — 60 percent of the people are disfranchised; 60 percent are not registered to vote. That's predictable in Kamloops. Kamloops is a burgeoning community. It's a relatively new community in terms of B.C. and in terms of its size.

No government, no minister and no department should be placed in a position where they have to put up with that kind of situation. It's absolutely shocking, when you consider that those members on the back bench somehow or other justify that seven years ago there wasn't a re-registration. Incidentally, that was the thirteenth year. Now we're into the twentieth year without a registration — that is, a complete enumeration. They say: "Why didn't you do it?" A government that's been in power on and off for some 27 years out of 29....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That kind of slurping over there is very interesting, but the member won't ever get up and give any kind of speech asking that the people in his riding be registered. Obviously he doesn't care for democracy. That's precisely what I am doing: asking that this kind of situation come to a halt.

It's too late for Kamloops; those people are already disfranchised. But wouldn't it be interesting if we've finally learned our lesson, and before the next general election we have an entire purging and an entirely new enumeration? It's about time. I don't think there's any justification for our carrying on any longer. There's more money in the vote; I would gather it's not enough to do that. I'm positive that no member in this House would object to sufficient money being placed into the vote to see to it that this is done.

British Columbia suffers from the standpoint that the population moves a great deal. Populations of areas like my town, New Westminster, are relatively static, but many of the communities — particularly the new communities — should be better served than they are.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether or not the minister would have anything to say with respect to the way our elections branch has been backed up. I'd also like to know, in case there isn't going to be another registration, if there will be registration cards provided to anybody that wants them to go out and register people on their own, in as great a number as is required. Presently you go to the registrar's office, and they'll count out 25 cards to the NDP — I don't know how many they count out to the Socreds — and before you can get another single card, you've got to bring those 25 back completed. That's the way it's run now. That means that one person can't go down and pick up for a number; that means that each individual going out to register voters has to go down himself or herself to pick up those cards. It's just too tight; it's too stiff. If there is a proper registration, we don't need to do that, but right now, Mr. Chairman, there is not a proper registration.

One of the things that I found during the last election was that many of the people who had been enumerated federally felt they were on the provincial list, and then when they got to the polls on election day they found out that they were disfranchised. I think it's a valid question, and I think that we had better do some thinking in this province about that very thing, particularly in light of what we're finding in Kamloops. I'm sure the other side is finding it too. It's ridiculous that people in a democratic society should be so easily disfranchised.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the member raised the question, because I have concerns too. With regard to Kamloops, he was questioning the availability of blank registration cards to assist people in becoming registered. He may not have heard, but I understand the chief electoral officer provided 500 to each of the political parties involved within the last ten days, I believe, so that they would each have access to a greater number of these. There is some question about the act — whether it's appropriate to be distributing quantities of registration cards. I'm sure that's the question that concerns the chief electoral officer. He has extended that number because of the urgency of the by-election being called, and recently provided an additional 500 to assist people in becoming registered.

[ Page 5325 ]

In addition, with regard to Kamloops, he has done quite a considerable amount of work previous to the election call and during the election period, refining the list and purging it. He went into a public-awareness program. As you know, it's very difficult. You can't go out and pick people up by the scruff of the neck and take them in and register them. You have to rely to quite a degree on their voluntarily deciding to do this responsible action. He refined this list to remove a lot of duplications and people no longer living there, to the point where an updated file showed 34,000 names on the list. Due to the public-awareness program, I'm advised, there has recently been completed the addition of another 6,000 names to the list at that point, so that the new list, when it is printed, will have approximately 40,000 names. I'm not sure if that includes the additional names that would have been self-registered during the safe seven-day period after the writ is dropped, but they may provide for some additional ones.

He has been promoting a considerable public-awareness program, and during the coming year, starting this April 1, will be advertising across the province, to the extent that funds are available for it, to encourage people to walk into the local office to become registered. During this past registration period there have been 31 offices which were available throughout the province for registration. We're looking forward to a more aggressive advertising program.

I might say that the province of British Columbia is the only province with a permanent voters' list as such. There's quite a lot happening here. I think the important thing to consider is that people don't lose their franchise, not so much that there are duplications. It doesn't concern me personally that a person's name might be on there two or three times, because there is very little falsification involved in this. When a person walks in to vote, he wants to have his name there so he is not disfranchised. What I'm saying is that the important thing is to get eligible voters on the voters' list.

MR. COCKE: To some extent I'm glad that the minister is concerned. I don't think that his solution is going to be the solution that we require. You see, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that we have three areas where people are registered to vote. They're registered municipally — automatically if they're municipal taxpayers.

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

MR. COCKE: Hear me through for a second. They're registered that way. Therefore I'm registered. I feel secure. I'm on the list. When I hear the ad on the radio or on television or see it in the paper.... I'm not sophisticated; I'm Joe Public. We're all relatively sophisticated politicians and know what's what about registration, because that's the life-blood of politics. That is not the life-blood of people concerned about looking after their families and doing other things.

Secondly, federally we have another kind of voters' list. This is a brand new voters' list created at each election. That's because there's an entirely new enumeration done at that time.

Thirdly, we have our B.C. voters' list, which is a permanent list. Once your name is on, it's on forever, amen. I know lots and lots of dead folks who are on that list. That's not to say that they're voting. I rather agree with the minister. I think there's very little misbehaviour with respect to that in this province.

If we can't do it better than an advertising campaign, what I'm calling for is a brand new enumeration. Purge the whole list and start from scratch. At least then we've got everybody where they are now. In five years or ten years from now.... You can also continue on with your permanent list. I'm not all that unhappy with a permanent list, because I know that the general enumeration during each federal election is a very expensive proposition and sometimes unmanageable.

Interjection.

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

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it's extremely important that this particular branch consider an entirely new enumeration of this province. If we don't realize that we need it now, we sure should. As politicians, each and every one of us has run into an awful lot of people who have been disfranchised. I say that it's through no fault of their own. It's because they're not sophisticated — pure and simple.

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted to ask the minister some questions concerning B.C. Place. The matter was raised this morning: the question of the roundhouse. Someone at lunch said: "Take her to the roundhouse; you'll never corner her there."

My question to the minister is simply this. I understand that the present status is that a study is being done by B.C. Place, under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Manning, with regard to the disposition of that building. One of the municipalities that's a component part of my constituency, Port Moody, has prepared a fairly lengthy brief. They haven't had an opportunity to present the brief. That particular municipality is most interested in obtaining the roundhouse and the turntable. The key to the development is the obtaining of the turntable. The purpose to which they would put it is a railway museum in the historic city of Port Moody, which, as the minister knows, was the original western terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Port Moody annually celebrates Golden Spike Days. The whole theme of the city has always centred itself upon the railroad industry and transportation. They have a fascinating proposal to develop their museum, with other transportation experiments, around the whole Transpo '86 proposition.

Can I give some assurance to the city of Port Moody that there won't be a final decision with regard to that disposition and that they will certainly have ample opportunity to complete, prepare and present their brief not only to the minister but to the committee of Transpo '86 so that their very interesting and unique request will be given full and complete consideration? Could the minister give me some assurance that no final decision has been taken and that there will be an opportunity for the city of Port Moody to present its brief to obtain the roundhouse and the turntable from the present B.C. Place site?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In dealing with this matter earlier today I was referring to a letter from Paul Manning, vice president of corporate relations of B.C. Place, to Mayor

[ Page 5326 ]

Harcourt of Vancouver. In it he also referred to the matter raised by the member when he indicated that Alderman Alan Ball of Port Moody had expressed interest in establishing a railway museum in that city. Alderman Ball had asked whether it would be possible to dismantle parts of the roundhouse for relocation at the Port Moody site, which is also of considerable historical importance in British Columbia's railway history. Should the necessary funding become available, and given the possibility that the roundhouse will have to be rebuilt in any event, this option might be further explored as one alternative course of action.

I can only answer the member by saying that the heritage branch of my ministry has not yet had any communication from Port Moody in connection with our responsibility for heritage matters, but we'd welcome it. I can assure you that there will be no decision — at least from what I'm informed by B.C. Place — in disposing of this matter at least before the end of the year.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to thank the minister for his answer and ask that he, his officials and the Transpo '86 committee look very carefully — and I hope favourably — in the event that they make a decision that the roundhouse is not appropriate to remain in the city of Vancouver. One of our great weaknesses in our drive to reconstruct vast areas of Vancouver is to lose sight of the many heritage places that have already been destroyed. If one travelled simply to the city San Francisco you could see a city with a tremendous appreciation of its heritage. They have maintained buildings similar to those that are being destroyed every day in Vancouver — wooden structures, etc. I think it's certainly incumbent on us to have some appreciation for the tremendous railroad heritage of the city of Vancouver and its surrounding areas.

I also represent a community called the city of Port Coquitlam, which has the other major roundhouse on the west coast. The roundhouse and the turntable, I understand, are no longer required because the diesel train doesn't use them. They were originally constructed for steam trains. We would hope that both of those turntables could be converted into railroad museums. I don't think there is a more appropriate place to locate them than in the city of Port Moody. Therefore I appreciate the minister's answer.

I did want to comment on a couple of other things that have come up. I'm sorry to see that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has left. Oh, here he is. I'm glad to see that he's back. He was expressing great concern that political organizations were allowed to market lottery tickets. One of the avowed purposes of those political organizations was apparently the promotion of socialism, which he no doubt sees as a terrible evil. I wanted to ask the minister if given that principle he would therefore object to chambers of commerce selling those lottery tickets on the grounds that within their charter is the promotion of the free enterprise system. In fact a good number of these organizations take an oath of their membership in terms of both junior and senior chambers of commerce. I wouldn't want to be small-minded enough to cut them off, but apparently the Minister of Municipal Affairs would like to chop off the chambers of commerce and everybody else who has a political point of view. That's the only logical conclusion one can take from his remarks.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Not them. Oh, it's just the NDP people he wants to cut off. I see. You've got to have a little more objectivity, Mr. Minister. You can see that it's a maturing province.

I also wanted to comment briefly on the question of the voters' list and the idea of a single list. I couldn't agree more that the public believe they are voters. When they're on a municipal list they're not sophisticated. That's not their everyday bread and butter as it is ours. They think they're on a voters' list, and we're continually disfranchising people. It seems to me so logical that the federal and provincial authorities could get together and develop a single list in cooperation with the municipalities. There's a tremendous waste of bureaucracy that goes on. The re-numeration at every federal election is a whole different structure. It seems to me we could easily set up a single registrar of voters, a single organization which does the job of putting everybody who's qualified on the list, and it's simple to have the single name and check whether they're qualified or not, provincially, federally and municipally. I would hate to speak of federal-provincial conferences, which have been producing such absolutely negative results in the past two or three years, but this is one conference that I think could produce some results for the people of Canada and perhaps a substantial tax saving.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a couple of items regarding changes in election practices that I'd like to bring forward for the minister's attention. I can't help thinking that it's really unfortunate we have to go into these nitty-gritty details on our concern for changes and for specific changes here when, really, a responsible government would set up a committee where all the members of the House — who could be ones that are selected — could sit down and work with the Provincial Secretary in bringing forward their ideas for proper and beneficial election changes. I just hope that one day the Social Credit government will take a step forward and follow the NDP practice, which was to involve members of the House in committees.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes. How many people in Kamloops are not on the voters' list, for example? Why do we have to stand up here and try to elicit this kind of thing on the floor of the House? Perhaps you can tell us how many are not on the voters' list, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak to the minister about a couple of other items. One is that, fortunately, some of the requirements of our present Election Act are fairly progressive, but we have a few areas that we need changed. In the last Quebec election, I noted a couple of things I would like to bring to the minister's consideration for a reaction. One is the whole matter — this has been brought up before — of the necessity of having our voters mark their ballots with an X. As you know, nothing but an X will do, and hundreds of ballots are spoiled in provincial elections in this province every time we have an election, because people forget they must mark with an X. When you think back on it, why is that necessary? Quebec has removed it. In Quebec, their ballots can be marked with an X, a tick, or a line through the circle opposite a candidate's name. The former argument was that the X was needed to ensure anonymity. I don't think this is any longer valid. Perhaps the minister could react to this. Although, may I say again, I always find this is not the way one should have to deal with

[ Page 5327 ]

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

One other thing I'd like to bring up is the matter of the handicapped, seeing this is the year of the handicapped. It shouldn't matter if it's the year or not. I think it's something all governments should have looked at with more care in the past. In Manitoba — and it's the only province in Canada — they have legislation which establishes a postal vote system. Apparently it's quite successful. Instead of boring the whole House by going into all the details on how this operates in Manitoba, I'd refer the minister to the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped that came through the House of Commons in February 1981, in which they praise the Manitoba government for bringing this in. It's pretty detailed, so I won't go through the details on how it operates, but I would appreciate it if the minister would look into this. As we know, many disabled people sometimes simply cannot manage to get out to vote, and apparently this has worked. Maybe the minister would look into it.

One other point I'd like to bring up; I'm sure the Provincial Secretary would particularly appreciate this, because he and I both entered our first provincial election in 1966, and I'm sure he, perhaps, feels as I do that those election campaigns are somewhat unnecessarily long. Perhaps you agree with me; perhaps you don't. For his information, election campaigns in Quebec now may not be shorter than 28 days nor longer than 35 days. Of course, in B.C. we just have a minimum of 38 days; the maximum isn't even specified. I'm wondering if the minister could give his reaction to my input to him today on some changes. And perhaps some day we will find a committee to discuss election changes.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want to thank the member for her suggestions. I think she has undertaken to send me information on the Manitoba system. We probably have that, but I appreciate receiving it.

I might say that two or three of the points she raised are embodied in our act and would require amendments. In fact, the most important one would have to do with registration. In other words, an enumeration in the way it's done by the federal government is not now possible under the act. We would be doing a re-registration of everyone.

With regard to the 38-day period required for the election, many people would like to see this abbreviated. The main reason for it being as long as it is, of course, is the period required to update the registration list to the extent possible — seven days after the writ is drawn up. There wouldn't be any other deterrent to abbreviating the period.

MR. KING: I have three or four different items to deal with. I just wanted to say, with respect to the issue under discussion for the past half hour, that it is highly confusing to the public in the province of B.C., in terms of the federal voters' list, the municipal voters' list and, of course, the provincial. Both the municipal and the federal list are far more permissive than the provincial voters' list. At the municipal level you can go in on election day and register and cast your ballot. Federally, in rural areas you can be sworn in on voting day, and your franchise will be maintained. Provincially there is no such system for swearing in, except section 80 of the Election Act, which is nothing more than a pacifier, because those votes are not counted unless the person's name is found to have been wrongly removed from the voters' list. With those kinds of differences in the various voting procedures, it's little wonder that the people of the province of British Columbia are highly confused as to precisely what the procedure is and what their rights are in the various elections that come along.

I certainly subscribe to the suggestion put forward by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam that there be some kind of dialogue with, perhaps, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the federal government to come up with a simplified standard procedure for getting on the voters' list, so that anyone who legally meets all the criteria for entitlement is not deprived of his vote on election day. That should be the objective. Certainly if his word can be taken with a statutory declaration at the federal level, I see absolutely no reason why the security and interests of the provincial government should be considered a higher factor than that of our national elections, and a different standard applied.

The other thing is that the minister said that 500 registration cards were given out to the political parties in Kamloops. Well, hooray! But the problem is that by that time, you've got seven days left to do the registration, which is a very compacted time in which to contact the people who think they're on the voters' list but it happens to be the municipal or federal list which they're on, rather than the provincial list. It's true, it takes a massive army of volunteers, in addition to a vigorous enumeration, to catch them all. Our point is that you can remove some of the roadblocks which are there now. That's what I think the government should be addressing itself to.

I've got some other important matters which I want to raise. I'm a vain person and a bit egotistical, and for that reason I like having a bit of an audience in the House. I would like to see some of the government members come back, so that the thoughts and representations I have on behalf of the good people of Shuswap-Revelstoke will be heard by all the government, not just a select number of backbenchers and two ministers of the Crown who are nearly falling off the edge of the benches anyway. Accordingly, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following motion:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 27

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

[ Page 5328 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I briefly want to raise this matter of safety with the Provincial Secretary again. His ministry has something to do with the safety within the public service. The safety awards are given out to the ministry having the best record of accident prevention and a minimum of lost-time injuries in the public service. I want to draw to the minister's attention the fact that a rather historic event took place in September of last year, that being a fine by the Workers' Compensation Board levied against the Ministry of Forests for abridging the safety standards set by the Workers' Compensation Board in the province of British Columbia.

I think that's a bit of a scandal and a shocker when one branch of government is found guilty of failing to abide by the standards which are generally set by that agency for adherence by all of the private sector as well as the government branches themselves. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, if that conviction and that fine have anything to do with the reason the Provincial Secretary cancelled the safety awards that were to be held this year. And I want to know whether or not the Provincial Secretary has taken any action to ensure that not only the Ministry of Forests but all branches of the provincial government will live up to the minimum standards set by the Workers' Compensation Board of the province — and applied to the private sector — so that at least we'll be consistent. The standards set by the board will have more credibility with the private sector when they know that the government, which basically sets the standards, is prepared to live with and respect those standards. I raise that in passing with the Provincial Secretary, and I would appreciate his comments on it.

The other area I wanted to deal with, Mr. Chairman, relates to the opening comments made by the Provincial Secretary when he introduced his estimates and talked about the great job that is being done for the libraries in British Columbia. I think he read a letter that he had received from some member of the library board in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District area congratulating the ministry on a good job with respect to their support for libraries. I find it rather ironic that the Provincial Secretary should raise that letter and suggest that a good job is being done with respect to library funding in that area, because I have here in a file literally dozens of letters, all complaining about the decline in funding for libraries in that area. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could just read a few of them to indicate to the Provincial Secretary the kind of problem that has arisen.

This is a letter from Kathy Wyse of Kamloops. The Provincial Secretary answered her letter. Also from Kamloops are a letter from a Mrs. L. Beachkowski and one from a Mr. Leslie Powell.

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

MR. KING: The minister's reply to the Beachkowski one was November 5, 1980, and the Kathy Wyse one was November 5, 1980. I'll get to some more of them here in  just a second. Here's a letter to the Hon. Evan Wolfe dated October 30, 1980, and signed by Edith E. Broadfoot of Chase. This is just a sample of the letters. I'm not going to read each and every one of them, but I'll read the minister a sample. This is directed to the minister:

"This is to advise you of my objection to the announcement by the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System that serious reductions in library service will take place over the next several months. In this area we voted for a library system for which the provincial government would pay approximately 50 percent of the operating budget. It is vital that you seriously reconsider reinstating adequate annual grants for this cause."

There's a submission from D.F. Broadfoot, presumably of the same family, one from Mrs. Joan Johnston from Kamloops and one from Mrs. B. Campbell of Chase, all along the same line.

Mr. Chairman, there was a submission from the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System itself and a news release issued by that board, saying:

"The board of management of the library system announced the details of step one in the planned reduction of library services today. These reductions have been made necessary because of reduced provincial government funding. The Valleyview library will be closed at 5 p.m. November I after six years of serving residents of the central and eastern areas of Kamloops. It is one of the casualties of reduced provincial government financing for the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System.

"The board chairman, Roger Behn, in regretfully announcing the closure, indicated this is like a nail in the coffin — the death of a plan designed to show what libraries could be in smaller centres. The plan, conceived by the W.A.C. Bennett government in 1971 and developed by the NDP government was to bring 'metropolitan centre' level library service to the interior. 'The government of B.C., whose total grants to public libraries are the lowest per capita of any province in Canada, is responsible for this library's demise.' said Behn.

" 'This library system,' added Behn, 'is in real difficulty in 1981. However, the other three regional library systems will be in a similar position in 1982. The only solution is for the residents of this province to let their MLAs and the Premier know directly that libraries must get reasonable provincial funding.'

"Valleyview and Dallas-Barnhart Vale residents are urged to use the Kamloops library, 236 St. Paul Street or the North Kamloops library. Books can be turned into the Valleyview library book slot until December 1.

"The closure follows decisions made at the board meeting of September 27 when a plan was developed to reduce anticipated 1981 costs because of the reduced government funding. Further steps include reducing open hours of the two other Kamloops libraries, as well as the Quesnel, Williams Lake and Merritt libraries, to four days per week. Film service will be cut out October 31 — another casualty of the reductions. As drastic is the reduction of open hours of smaller libraries by 35 to 50 percent effective January 1.

"'January 1, 1981, will be a black day for libraries in the interior,' stated Behn. 'It is hoped that each library user will make this known to his or her MLA. The government can do something about saving your library service.'"

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

[ Page 5329 ]

MR. KING: This is October 15, 1980. It's under the letterhead of the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System, 906 Laval Crescent, Kamloops, B.C., V2C 5P5. I consider that it's a bona fide letter from the library board in that area. I think they're expressing their concern in sincere and honest terms. I've indicated to the minister the number of letters that I receive from private citizens all through that general area complaining about these major cutbacks in the library.

For the minister to get up and introduce his estimates with a letter of congratulations from someone in this area is an enigma, to say the least. I don't know who that was. Whether that person the minister quoted was the Social Credit appointment to the library board I don't know; maybe it was. But it certainly doesn't reflect the broad view coming to me from that library board and the public in that area. I would suggest to the Provincial Secretary that he knows, as do all people in the province right now, to the continuing embarrassment of Social Credit, that one of the library facilities that had to close in north Kamloops is now occupied by the Social Credit Party as a committee campaign room for the provincial by-election.

Is the minister telling us that all those people and all the evidence of empty facilities taken over by the government themselves for a political campaign are all wrong? Is he telling us to believe that in spite of these closures and cutbacks in hours of service in that important interior area, that funding is just jake-a-loo and everything's okay? The people of the area don't believe it, and I'm responding to the letters and requests that I receive to drive this message home to the Provincial Secretary as forcefully as I possibly can by saying: "Look, the people of the interior are entitled to a fair standard of library facility in the same way that metropolitan areas throughout the province are." I think members on all sides of the House who represent interior communities, be it in the north, central or southern interior, have to support the need for what should be fundamental services in today's society, unless the government is satisfied with some other scenario where good reading, good opportunity for exposure to good reading material and good literary opportunity are denied to the people of the province. I don't think that's the government's real intention. I think it's a matter of priorities in spending.

I'm upset about this matter, and I would very much like to hear what the Provincial Secretary intends to do to restore a level of library facilities and funding which recognizes inflation and allows for the preservation of those library facilities on at least a five-day-a-week basis and provides them with an adequate operating budget under the formula.

One of the reasons that people from the interior get a bit angry.... This government is very fond of kicking the federal government in Ottawa around. They say: "Hey, we're alienated out here in the west." They go around kicking the slats out of Ottawa, and particularly the Prime Minister, and they say: If you don't start recognizing us and treating us better, we're going to take some drastic action." I don't think they've gone quite so far as to say we're going to separate or anything like that, but they're constantly talking about the riches really being in the west and how we're alienated because the bulk of the political weight resides in Quebec and Ontario.

I want to tell the Provincial Secretary that he has that same kind of problem right here in the province of British Columbia. There are many people in the north and the interior who take the view that the resource wealth, the power resources for electrical and hydro power generation, is up in the interior, and to a large extent the environment has been alienated and despoiled to provide power for the industrial and residential complexes on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. They say: "What do we get back for it?" I don't think most people in the province of British Columbia are so narrow in their view that they object to the sharing of the wealth from resources across the length and breadth of the province, but we do get a little bit tired of providing the resource wealth to the central core of the population where the political power is, which is Vancouver and the lower mainland, to the exclusion and detriment of the rural areas of the province of British Columbia. We ask ourselves why there should be a Pier B-C, a Transpo '86, rapid transit and a tunnel to Vancouver Island to accommodate the fertile mind of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications(Hon. Mr. McGeer), when we in the interior can't even enjoy basic library services.

It's not just library services; we're losing health services that are important. I know it's not your jurisdiction, but we in Revelstoke have just lost our home-care program.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Nonsense! What an asinine comment from my friend from Omineca. I work in an open way in debate in this Legislature, which we were elected to do. If the member who sits in his seat and snipes away, with incessant banalities, would get on his feet and speak for his area, he'd be more productive too.

In all good conscience and in all sincerity, I'm suggesting to the Provincial Secretary that we feel a little bit cheated. I'm certainly interested in listening to his side of it. Maybe he has done something since the time these letters poured in. I know that whatever has happened, he hasn't solved all of the problem. We have some vacant libraries up there; some are closed down and some are not operating full-time. I would like to receive some kind of commitment from the minister that he is concerned about this type of input which I've received from all over that area. He must have received it too. In fact, many of these letters are copies of letters directed to the minister. I would like some indication from him that he's sensitive to this problem, that he's prepared to assign a higher priority to it, and that he's prepared to make the necessary financial allocation to bring it back up to the standards it enjoyed between 1972 and 1979. I'd appreciate the minister's answer to that question.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thank the member for raising the question on libraries, which we haven't dealt with until this point in time. At the outset, I have to say that I think his comments with regard to the problems of the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola district are, to be fair, somewhat out of date. He referred to a number of letters he has, which I'm sure I have as well, and a considerable campaign which went on last fall, having to do with their particular problem. In this coming year's estimates we've made a substantial increase in the funds available for libraries across the province — a 45 percent increase in the grants to libraries, or an increase of some $2 million across the province. In addition, to specifically address wide-ranging districts which have lower populations, we have introduced a new feature support for librar-

[ Page 5330 ]

ies; that is, a grant of $8 per square mile is added to the per capita grant. Last year the grant was $1.46 per capita; in this coming year it will amount to $2.93 per capita. Basically it is what we have always called a book grant. In addition, of course, there will be the $8 per square mile.

Regarding Cariboo-Thompson in particular, we're all aware that this specific district has had a special financing formula associated with it. It was perhaps based on 50 percent sharing of the cost to libraries. You might say it was somewhat of an experiment — there was a referendum. We've had a number of meetings and discussions with the people up there and with the regional district. A committee was formed, which met with me, and we arrived at what I think is a very satisfactory solution. Negotiations took place, the result of which was that we agreed to provide that area with a special one-time grant to retire debt, to make it easier for them in terms of their operating obligations in the future — a one-time grant of $450,000 this year. In addition, we were providing a continuing grant of $723,889 for the year 1981-82. I believe that the total of the two grants, the one-time grant and the particular operating grant this year, would amount to something over $1.1 million or $1.2 million.

I could go on at considerable length regarding the Cariboo-Thompson and their problems, but I can say that due to the prolonged meetings which took place and to the efforts of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who met with the people up there on different occasions, I think we arrived at a very satisfactory conclusion. There were concerns that the level of funding provided in recent years, which they agreed to reduce, would impact on the enrichment that had been made in their library system.

Mr. Member, I have a file of letters too, which are really more current, that I'd like to make available to the House. I won't read at length from them, but I'd like to have you see them. One is from the chairman of the board of the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System, dated April 24, 1981. It says: "Also, this library board wishes to thank you and your colleagues in cabinet for implementing our new funding formula for public libraries. Congratulations are due to the government of British Columbia for their commitment to public library service."

Then a letter from the B.C. Library Trustees Association dated April 8 says: "Library trustees across this province appreciate this action by the provincial government in making continued good library service available. Please convey the appreciation of the association to the cabinet." It's signed by Mrs. Nora Stocks, president of the B.C. Library Trustees Association.

There is also a letter from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, dated March 23. I'm quoting, in part, a letter signed by their administrator, Eric Shishido. He states: "May we offer our thanks to you and your staff during the negotiations resulting in the favourable resolution of the one-time grant to the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System." I quoted, during my earlier remarks at the beginning of these estimates, from a congratulatory letter from Mr. Ray Woods, chairman of the Library Advisory Council, which is dated April 3. A letter from the Cariboo Regional District, dated April 3, says:

"We passed a resolution that the letter dated March 12 from the Hon. Evan Wolfe and the news release dated March 10 from the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services regarding the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System be received, and that a copy of resolution No. 813130, concerning the use of the $450,000 special grant, be forwarded to the hon. minister. In addition, a letter will be sent to the Hon. Evan Wolfe indicating the Cariboo Regional District board's sincere appreciation for the minister's efforts on behalf of the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library System."

There are further letters from Miss Dolly Kennedy of the Library Trustees Association of British Columbia and Mrs. M.G. Williams, chairman of the East Kootenay Library Society.

These are official bodies representing the library fraternity and regional districts associated with that particular problem. We have directed a lot of energy towards trying to resolve it, because it was a special area that had a very special financial situation in the past. I think it's reasonable to say that the people who are really involved in the matter up there are, to the best of my knowledge, reasonably satisfied with the solution which we've arrived at. We've certainly gone out of our way. I want to thank Treasury Board for making funds available this year to try to upgrade the support we are giving to libraries in the province.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I would like to ask leave to table these documents at a later point.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his reply. If indeed the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the local area, then I'm more than pleased. I would point out, however, that, as the minister commented in his reply — I think it was quoted in one of the letters: "A favourable resolution has been found...." You know, it's fine to get congratulatory letters, Mr. Minister, but when the government's cut in the grant support for that library system created the initial problem, it's a bit much to accept too many plaudits for resolving it afterwards. You created the dilemma. You created the problem. Then you come along and say: "Okay, after meetings with the people in the area" — which should have taken place before the cuts were announced and before the budget was set so they could plan too, in terms of what kind of support they were getting from the provincial government.... It would have been far better to consult at that time rather than after the fact.

I knew about the meeting up there, attended I believe by the departed member for Kamloops, who at that time was Minister of Health, the Provincial Secretary, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). If the government wanted to be fairly broad-minded in their approach and quest for input into the development and maintenance of that library system, they might have invited the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke too. My area, where the citizens have just as many rights as anywhere else — simply because they're not represented by a Socred — had an interest in and a reliance on that same library system. The government shouldn't be timid about including any MLA, government or opposition, who's party to a problem like this. Why do you have to be so narrow that just the cabinet ministers from around the area closet themselves together, and an MLA who represents an important part of that library district and who's very directly affected by the cutbacks is not even consulted and is not invited to the meeting for his input and suggestions about what might be done? It's like small-time politics, and I think that's a bit regrettable. In any event, I do thank the Provincial Secretary for his response and I take him at his word. Certainly I will be

[ Page 5331 ]

in contact again with members of the area boards and some of the people who have written to me to ascertain that, indeed, they are satisfied with the support the library system is receiving now.

There is one other area that I wanted to deal with. Perhaps I should mention, first of all, that I congratulate the Provincial Secretary for choosing Revelstoke as the site of the 1983 Winter Games. Once again I say to him that it just might have been nice, you know, had the Provincial Secretary recognized the MLA for the riding in making the announcement. It's not a big thing. I think it's kind of chintzy, though — don't you? — when, because a man sits in opposition, you fail to respect and recognize the fact that he is the representative in the Legislature for that district and you make the announcement without ever notifying the local MLA. I heard about it through a representative for the city of Revelstoke the day the Provincial Secretary was flying up to Revelstoke in a government jet to meet with city council and make the announcement that Revelstoke was the successful applicant. He never got there because it was clouded in — too bad. I would very much liked to have seen the Provincial Secretary get there — and we would always welcome him there. But it's just that kind of little — I refer to it as a chintzy — thing that I don't think does the government any good politically. You know, it's just a matter of recognition; it's a matter of courtesy.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We've had your members at other announcements.

MR. KING: I can't hear what the minister is saying. But that happens frequently, and this government has a definite policy of excluding opposition members from announcements such as that, and of inviting their own government members from other areas, even to intrude into an opposition member's riding, to make announcements and so on. It's all right to bring them in — they're all welcome — but you might do the courtesy of recognizing the democratic will of the people, who have chosen their own representative, and at least include him in notification. It's a small point.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LORIMER: I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming a group of students from Marlborough-Royal Oak Secondary School in Burnaby. Along with them are some 50 exchange students from the province of Quebec.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I just wanted to indicate that I have no resistance to the suggestion that opposition members be invited. These occasions arise very quickly. But I wanted to indicate to him that in the case of the Trail announcement your member was invited and your member appeared there.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for that and perhaps.... What was that the Smothers brothers used to say? "Mother liked that brother better than me." No, as I say, it's not a great big thing; but I think it would be a matter of common courtesy and it might make relationships a bit more civil if those kinds of basic courtesies were observed.

Finally on that point, I am prepared to work along with the minister and his staff and the representatives of the Revelstoke area in any way that I possibly can, in terms of the planning and arrangements, to make sure that the 1983 Winter Games are indeed a resounding success. If there are any suggestions that the minister or his staff have that would be helpful, I would be very pleased to receive them — and certainly that's reciprocal.

The other point that I wanted to raise, Mr. Chairman, is a point on behalf of the recreation and fitness branch field representatives. I am concerned that these people, who provide a very valuable service in the field throughout the province of British Columbia, are very short-staffed. I have some information that I've received from the association that they belong to, I believe, and from various organizations around the province who work through the field representatives in delivering recreation and various cultural and fitness opportunities to the municipalities. I think there are some rather shocking revelations regarding the staff, in population and the geography that these individuals have to serve, comparing that with other areas of the nation. I'd just like to indicate to the minister some of the things that I found rather shocking and ask him whether or not he was aware of these problems and whether he intends to do anything to bolster this very necessary service to the urban areas of the province.

I have a resolution passed by the British Columbia Recreation Association. Perhaps I should just read it:

"Whereas in 1980 there were 375 recreation commissions and recreation departments in the province, therefore be it resolved that the British Columbia Recreation Association submit a proposal to the provincial government to substantially increase the number of field staff representatives working throughout the province so that committees and groups may take better advantage of provincial programs and expertise. We wish you to be well informed about the above concern and to this end have prepared the enclosed information."

There's a table showing recreation and fitness branch field representatives, their location and the area they serve, a table illustrating the regional districts of the province served by the recreation and fitness representatives and a table comparing the number of professional field staff working in the territories and provinces of Canada.

There's some very revealing data here, Mr. Chairman, that I think the House should be aware of. This table shows the areas that the field staff representatives of the recreation and fitness branch serve, their office location, number of commissions, number of regional districts, the population and square kilometres in each area.

There's one field rep in Victoria. The number of recreation commissions that he has to deal with and serve are 12. The approximate number of regional districts is one with a population of 229,000, a percentage total of 9.29 and an area of 2,427 square miles.

Vancouver Island and Nanaimo have one. It serves 67 recreation commissions, has six regional districts, a population of 224,000 and an area of over 58,000 square miles.

Vancouver has one representative for 12 recreation commissions, one regional district, a population of 1,000,083 — one recreation and fitness person representing that kind of population — and an area of 2,602 square miles. It's not that large.

[ Page 5332 ]

Fraser Valley has one. The office location in Abbotsford serves 28 recreation commissions, four and a half regional districts and a population of 212,000.

The central interior has one field rep at Kamloops representing 49 recreation commissions, slightly more than two regional districts, a population of 157,000 and an area of 167,761 square miles. How is one person supposed to provide any kind of cohesive fitness and recreation program serving that large a rural area with that population and square mileage?

Similkameen-Okanagan-Boundary has one representative serving 46 recreation commissions, four regional districts, a population of 199,395 and an area of 30,000 square miles.

For the East and West Kootenays there is one representative serving 69 recreation commissions, two regional districts and a population of 95,000.

Then there are two more in central British Columbia up at Prince George serving 92 recreation commissions, a population of 232,000 and an area of 608,000 square miles.

Obviously these people can't do an adequate job. It's my understanding that the number of fitness and recreation directors has remained constant. I think there are nine of them in the province, and it's been nine for something like the last ten years. That's a bit of a sham. We can't deliver the program the provincial government is talking about in an effective way when people are spread that thin. There are heavy demands on these people, and by and large they're doing a good job throughout the rural areas of the province — and certainly, I believe, in the metropolitan areas too.

I'm not going to go through all the data, but some of it is very pertinent to think about, look at and contrast against the kind of support other provinces are providing. Here's a table that compares the populations of the ten provinces and two territories, the number of recreation and field offices, the number of professional recreational field staff and the population per recreation field staff person.

In the Yukon the average population is pretty near 22,000; the field staff is two; the average population the field staff serves is 10,000. In the Northwest Territories the total population is 42,000. They've got four recreation offices and a staff of four field people, and they serve an average of just over 10,000 people. New Brunswick, in the Maritimes, has a population of 677,000. They have 13 offices and a staff of 29 to provide these services throughout New Brunswick. We in the province of British Columbia have nine. Isn't that a shame? There's something seriously wrong here if we're serious about those very important community services we're trying to deliver. In New Brunswick the staff of 29 serve an average population of 23,000. Saskatchewan has 18 offices and 18 staff; Newfoundland has 10 offices and ten staff — more staff than British Columbia. Alberta has 18 offices and 26 field staff; Manitoba has 14 staff; Quebec has 62 staff; Ontario has 73 staff, and so on it goes. I think the only area with a lower staff than British Columbia is Nova Scotia with six.

I'm not suggesting we go out and hire a whole flock of new people, but I am suggesting the field staff you have now is really overburdened to the point where it can't cover all the demands being placed on it — the legitimate demands in terms of the criteria and qualification. They're run to a frazzle; it's unfair and they're rather desperate. As a consequence our communities suffer. We fail to have the programs we might have for senior citizens' groups and young people, and for a broader opportunity for fitness and recreation, which is in everyone's best interest in the province of British Columbia.

This has a relationship to health care, because if people are active, involved and in a better physical condition, then the calls upon our medicare system are reduced commensurately. So you save; it's not a loss. There's a payback in ensuring these people are given the wherewithal to mount good programs, to have the minimum staff requirements they need and to be given some support by the legislators here to recognize that a better recreational opportunity and better physical fitness are related to one's health, one's psychological outlook and a whole variety of other social interactions that can be traced. There is a payback in many ways. I suggest to the Provincial Secretary that it's false economy not to invest a more reasonable amount in this very important area. I make that plea to him as strongly as I possibly can.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thank the member for bringing this to my attention. I had received the letter referred to and have replied to it. There are now some 50 staff in the recreational and sports branch, including the eight or nine field representatives referred to. I recognize the concern here. It should be pointed out, though, that in addition we are providing considerable grants to provide field representatives at the local level. For staff hiring there are incentive grants for local recreational commissions. A number of these grants are going out now which assist in the hiring of local recreational representatives. We have also increased the number of sports coordinators across the province from 6 to 12 in this coming year. It isn't all strictly restricted to the one field representative. I'll certainly look at the areas he's talking about, because I think your main thrust concerned the widespread areas represented by only one person.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I don't very often agree with the member for Revelstoke- Shuswap (Mr. King), because we have very strong political, philosophical differences, but I must agree with some of what he said this afternoon in regard to the interior communities of this province being short-changed in many service areas. I must disagree with him, of course, in respect to my constituency of Omineca, when he says that they're being short-changed in health services. That is not so, Mr. Member. We have new health centres now built at Fraser Lake and Granisle, and we have a new one in the planning stages for Houston. I think the delivery of health services in my constituency is very good.

[Mr. Lauk in the chair.]

That's not what I wanted to talk about this afternoon. I'd like to take some time of committee to speak about the guidelines under which the lottery fund is governed in this province and the inequity of those guidelines, as I see it — relating to the small interior and northern communities of this province. I don't, however, agree with the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — he isn't in his seat at this time — who spoke this morning about the equalization of the distribution system of lottery grants. I don't agree that they should be done on a basis of riding population. As a rural and northern member, I see far too often that the wealth of this province, which primarily originates in the interior and the northern two-thirds of our province, is primarily spent in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island. Not as much of it is

[ Page 5333 ]

returned as it could be whence it came. I don't want to see the large, populated areas of this province get most of the lottery money. I guess the reason that I stand in debate here today is to talk about the guidelines and the rules under which Lottery Fund grants are given in British Columbia.

First I would like to make a point that there are people and communities in the interior and the north of this province. This is the area which, as I've said before, produces the lion's share of the wealth of British Columbia. Those people, because they choose to live in the rural areas of this province, in small communities and unorganized areas — and those in the lower mainland, I might add, are very lucky that they do — have different needs and wants, most of which I've found, unfortunately, do not meet the guidelines laid down by the present Lottery Fund objectives. Consequently we see reports such as the latest quarterly report released on March 12 of this year in which a total of $1,454,000 was allocated from the Lottery Fund in that three-month period — and I have to interject, that's except for the travel grants, which are a very miniscule part of the total amount. I see that only two grants in that three-month period in this quarterly report, a total of $38,900, went to projects in the northern two-thirds of this province — a mere $38,900 from a fund which dealt out $1,454,000. This has been the case, I might add, in report after report that I've seen in the last several months, where the bulk of the funding is going to the lower mainland.

[Mr. Ritchie in the chair.]

Let's just take a look. I'd like to pick out some of the larger grants. I won't read them all; there is quite a list but only two went to the northern two-thirds of this province: Maple Ridge Amateur Athletic Association, $29,545; B.C. Forest Museum Society, Duncan, $130,000; Mission Workshop Association, $45,000; Vancouver Welsh Society, $32,000; Kitsilano Show Boat Committee, $20,000; Langley Family Services Association, $50,500; and the Corporation of the District of Burnaby, $280,000. The British Columbia Humane Trapping Committee, a group which consistently attempts to put the trappers of the interior of this province out of business, received $29,000 from the Lottery Fund; Kitsilano Inter-Neighbourhood Development Society, $12,000; the town of Merritt, $122,500. I could go on and on. All but $38,900 went to the lower one-third of this province.

I don't selfishly say that those very worthy groups and probably very worthy causes should not get the money they did get from the fund. I'm only making the point that I feel very strongly that more of that money should return to where the wealth of this province is made. There are very few grants going to the north, and I say it's the way in which the decisions are made to allocate those grants that is in error. The guidelines are wrong and they must be changed as to the eligibility of projects put forward through application. These guidelines, in my estimation, are prejudicial; they're prejudicial, as we see, to the northern part of this province, and I think they must be changed. Having made that point I would once again — and this time on the floor of this House — ask the Provincial Secretary to make the necessary changes which will recognize those of our citizens who live in the interior of this province, and recognize the particular needs of those who live essentially in the northern two-thirds of the province.

Having said that, I'd like to point out what happens when those guidelines cannot consider the needs of those small communities. For two years I have attempted through the Lottery Fund to provide for the people in a very small community in my constituency.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Member, one that I visit quite often — as often as you visit yours.

In particular, I'm talking about the children of that community of Fort Fraser and the attempt by a group of people in that community to obtain lottery funds for an adventure playground. Application was made for a mere $12,000 for the children of a have-not community, where there are very few amenities, particularly for the children, for obvious reasons. Consequently there's a very real need to assist this community and its children in the building of that adventure playground. The guidelines say that such playgrounds — get this, Mr. Member — cannot be built on school grounds with the help of Lottery Fund money. Aside from the fact that this community has little other suitable land on which to build the playground, where else would it be better to build the playground than on the school grounds? The guidelines must be changed.

There are many other instances; I've only picked this one. There are many other instances in my riding — and I've heard it from other members in this House — where lottery funds have been turned down for reasons not encountered in the urban areas of this province, in the lower mainland or on Vancouver Island. These particular problems only exist in the interior. The guidelines must be changed to fit those problems. This one is for the children of the community. Surely there is no greater need than for the Lottery Fund to be used for the children of our small communities in this province. I would ask again that the guidelines be changed, and that it be done in recognition of the needs of the citizens of the small communities in unorganized areas of British Columbia. I make this plea on the floor of this House. Once again I would ask the minister to consider the children of Fort Fraser.

MRS. DAILLY: Before I go on to the subject of libraries, which I'm most interested in and about which I want to bring a few points to the minister's attention, I'd like to express my sympathy with the last speaker. As I listened to him, I couldn't help thinking that it's very typical of this government, which he so tentatively supports, that they have money for a massive playground for adults, B.C. Place, but they can't find a few thousand dollars for a playground for children. I think that about puts it where it is when it comes to the priorities of the Social Credit government.

I want to talk about libraries and priorities. I know the minister started off by reading congratulatory letters from people, because of the recent grants handed out to libraries in British Columbia. The point I want to make is that when it comes to libraries in British Columbia, we should be very proud of one fact. The libraries in British Columbia — and I don't know whether the minister is aware of this fact — have the highest per capita use in Canada. I think that's a very interesting and positive fact. It speaks for the reading interests of the citizens of British Columbia. The negative aspect of this is that at the same time we have the highest per capita use of libraries in Canada, we also have one of the lowest per capita direct-grant fundings by any provincial government in

[ Page 5334 ]

Canada. That's in spite of the increase which the minister has just announced with much fanfare, suggesting that everything is pretty good out there in the library system now.

Mr. Chairman, to my mind, libraries should always have priority. The only reason that the Social Credit government moved on the problems in the Nicola valley, in the Kamloops area — which were enunciated again by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — is not that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and others went to him first, asking him to increase the grants, which were so pitiful last year — in fact, one year they didn't get an increase — that they had to start closing libraries. Do you know what it was? It was because the citizens of the area went to their elected officials, rose up, put on a tremendous campaign and said: "We won't take this any more from this government."

For the minister to suggest that they were so magnificent this year in handing out these increased grants.... I can't help wondering whether, if the citizens in those areas had not become so vocal and so strong over their concern for the cutbacks, we would never have seen any moves at all. I know it's all right for people to say: "Well, that's how governments move and react. They have to react to public pressure." But you know, when the government can reach a point with their library funding that libraries actually have to shut their doors to the public, as we know they had to under the Social Credit government, then I say that shows a government that doesn't really have any true commitment to the funding of libraries in this province. I say best wishes to the people out there who mounted a magnificent campaign and got the government to move — somewhat belatedly, but to move to some degree — to prevent the drastic closures.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was pitifully little, though.

MRS. DAILLY: And we're still at a very low level compared to the other provinces of Canada. It reminds one of the school taxes, Mr. Chairman, where I'm sure we are now also one of the lowest contributors in direct aid of any provincial government. I'm not going to hold the Provincial Secretary responsible for that today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, he was Minister of Finance.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, he was in the past, and I'm sure he must be very upset about what's happening to the schools in his own area of Vancouver. I hope he is, and I hope we will see some changes.

Back to the libraries, though. I think that the basic concern is that even though we have this increased grant this year, it is still because of inflation — I think the minister is aware of this — and because of the people who are interested in using the libraries. It is still not keeping up with the needs of the people in British Columbia. I'm naturally concerned with the greater Vancouver area, because Burnaby is part of the Greater Vancouver Library Federation. I know that there they are serving more people with less money in 1981 than they had in 1976. Mr. Minister, I know you may answer me and say: "Well, there's only so much money to go around." But I want to reiterate that this is an issue of priorities. As long as there's money for edifices and monuments to this government, surely there can be money for libraries.

The other concern I have with the whole library policy in our province today is that we've gone backwards from the NDP years, when there was an honest attempt to try to start a complete and cohesive library development scheme for the province of British Columbia. We can't blame the present minister, but one of the former Socred ministers certainly emasculated that system by stopping comprehensive library development. Without any consultation, an arbitrary move was made. The people out there whom I've talked to in the library system are very concerned that there still seems to be a lack of comprehensive commitment to developing libraries on a cooperative basis throughout the province. I would think that a government that are so concerned about moneys for libraries, and who have to have it pulled out of them sometimes, would be interested in helping and in giving provincial leadership to the development of a cohesive system, which perhaps in time could be less expensive.

Those are some of the points that I'm really concerned about. For the minister to just stand up and read a few letters lauding him and his government and then think that everything is okay.... I want to tell him it is not. For those people who wrote, I would say certainly they should have written. They're always thankful for something, and fair enough — they have to work with this government.

I hope that the minister does not sit back and think now that all is well in the libraries of British Columbia. The increased cost of books, as you're all aware, has become almost unbelievable today. For example, the average cost of buying one book for the business division of the Vancouver Public Library increased by 31 percent since 1976. Another example is that the increase for an average book in the area of science and technology from 1976 to 1980 was 44 percent. While I'm speaking on behalf of their problems with the increased cost, may I remind the minister that the provincial Legislative Library faces the same increased costs.

What I'm saying is that they're really literally marking time. They have an expanded clientele. They have tremendously inflated costs for books and for operating in other areas. This government, if they're truly interested in supporting libraries, simply must decide that libraries should always receive an adequate amount of money so that they don't just slip back to the way the funding was four or five years ago. I'm really concerned that the minister seems to be sitting back and thinking that all is well out there. We have a long way to go to bring the the Social Credit government's contribution up to contributions of other provincial governments to libraries.

There is another concern that's been expressed to me by some people who are on library boards today. I don't know where it has arisen, but they must be getting vibes from this Social Credit government that perhaps they are not committed to the library board. They are concerned that they may be turned over to committees or to elected officials on councils, etc. The library boards of this province — I think the minister would agree if he's attended any conventions of library trustees — are committed and dedicated people. They're not paid, but they really believe in pushing for the future of libraries and believe in their commitment to libraries for all the people of British Columbia. They are really, truly committed. They are concerned that perhaps there may be an attempt to turn over their work to committees. I wonder if the minister could confirm whether this is an intent under his new ministry since he came or if he himself and his ministry are committed to the library boards of British Columbia. I wonder if you could react to some of those statements now.

[ Page 5335 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want to assure the member that in no way have I said or inferred that this is any temporary interest on behalf of the libraries. It's continuing support through my ministry and personally to whatever can be done to assist them. I think the member's really aware of that. I will repeat what I said a couple days ago with regard to the level of service provided in British Columbia. In a recent position paper on regional libraries prepared by the directors of Ontario's regional library systems and presented to that province's Minister of Culture and Recreation, the directors referred to British Columbia as having "achieved the finest level of public library service in Canada."

I agree with the member's desire to improve library service. We must appreciate that, from a dollar bill point of view, it isn't only the grants we provide through our estimates here, but that in addition to that the recreational facilities fund provides capital grants. I think last year there was $1,182,000 provided for capital purposes. For her information, in the coming year the Greater Vancouver Library federation system will be increased from $940,000 to $1,380,000.

In part, her concern over the level of funding of libraries might have been appropriate if applied to last year. Certainly when it's increased from $1.46 per capita last year to something like $2.93 per capita in the coming year.... Those are statistics, but it gives you some idea of the level of increase that we've been able to generate. I had to get down on bended knees to Treasury Board.

I have just one further comment with regard to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). He and I have had many conversations on lotteries. I think we try to do our best and bend over backwards to do more than we could in other areas. He refers to areas which have a lack of facilities or funds to be able to provide them. It is difficult when you get applications for facilities in schools, or Ministry of Education facilities, where other funds and means are provided. I would like to say to him that to compare different areas and how much they are funded is really not appropriate. I find that some constituencies never apply for lottery grants, whereas in others there is a great deal of activity and a great deal of need for facilities or assistance to capital projects that isn't available through any other source. So it doesn't seem to fall to any uniformity depending on the constituency.

I want to emphasize to all members that if you want to come to see me in my office at any time with lottery grant concerns, I'd be most happy to talk to you. I've been doing that in the past. Maybe you're not aware of that. If you want to bring a list of them or any individual ones, we'll be happy to meet with you and discuss reviewing the application and so on.

It does depend on the number of requests which come from a given area. Some areas don't seem to have any demand or need for lottery grants; others have a great deal. As for the lack of funding for the far reaches of the province, when you look through the lists of quarterly releases of lottery funds, you find a great many go to areas other than Vancouver: the Stewart Historical Society, $15,000; Prince George and District Association for the Retarded, $12,000; a northern tour of the Vancouver Symphony Society, $100,000; Chetwynd and District Recreation Commission, $55,000; Fort St. John ski hill, $100,000.

I'm happy to have the member approach me, as he has done before, in terms of lottery grants with which he is concerned, but we do have guidelines and you have to be fair with one and all.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I've got to make the point to the minister once again about the application made by the small group of people in Fort Fraser. I think it's a clear indication and it backs up my argument that changes should be made to the guidelines. Here we have a very small, unorganized community in which possibly 400 people live. The school children there have very few amenities — for very good reason, living in such a small community. All they're asking for is a lousy $12,000 for an adventure playground. If the guidelines of this fund can't be changed enough to allow those children to receive a $12,000 grant from a $1 million fund, I think that's sad.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I've got to make this point here today. I'm not going to get off this horse; I'll ride it into the ground if necessary. Those children deserve that playground. We in the north probably buy more lottery tickets per capita than anywhere else in this province, because we are gamblers. We are free enterprisers, and we buy those kinds of tickets. I would suggest that the lion's share of the money that comes to that fund comes from the northern two-thirds of this province. I think it's a sham that that group of people has been given the runaround for two years, as I have, for a lousy $12,000 for an adventure playground for the children of that community. I rest my case.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have just one more quick question on libraries, before we move on to another subject. Last year when the budget came in the minister had quite a bit of praise heaped on him and his government for the $3 million set aside for the computerization of library services. I understand that that whole thing is still sitting around, waiting for a decision. After all the credit taken by Social Credit for this magnificent $3 million, which everyone in libraries was very happy to hear about, nothing has happened. All the interest from that fund is being turned back right now into general revenue, which means the money is actually shrinking at a rate of 12 percent a year. I've had a lot of concern about this expressed to me, and I wonder if the minister can tell us the reason for the delay and what's happening to that $3 million.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It has taken a long period of time to expedite the disposition of that fund, but there has been considerable study on how it would be used and quite a lot of disagreement on what might be appropriate. A consultant was involved, and a report was received in October. Extensive comment has been received on this report, both from within government and outside, and we're actively seeking the views of public libraries on this at the moment. I would agree that it has taken more time than it should, and will certainly attempt to expedite it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm going to be fairly brief. I come from an interior riding, and as the MLA from that riding I just want to compliment the Provincial Secretary's office and the Provincial Secretary for some of the things that have been done. I appreciate the comments made by the member for Omineca, because as MLA I've failed the odd time too in getting projects approved, but we have been successful in some cases, as I'm sure the member for Omineca has.

Just to name a few, Mr. Chairman, in the city of Grand Forks we had James Donaldson Memorial Park, a baseball

[ Page 5336 ]

diamond which could only be used in the daylight hours, and the Kinsmen club got together and attempted to raise funds. They worked hard to raise funds to put lighting in that park so they could have night baseball for young people and students, and an activity centre for the community by using that baseball diamond in the evening of the summer months. I'm pleased to say the Provincial Secretary's office came through with flying colours on that.

In regard to libraries, an amount of $113,000 was received as assistance with the construction of a new community library in the city of Grand Forks.

There was assistance under the Lottery Fund to help refurbish an activity centre and hall lost by the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ through a fire.

In Greenwood, Mrs. Beth Gough, the secretary-treasurer of a juvenile project which tries to give our young people who have had problems with the law the opportunity of learning a trade, spearheaded an activity. The amount requested from and paid by the Lottery Fund was only $3,120, but that assisted in the purchase of equipment to upgrade the workshop facilities. I can tell you, as MLA I was very pleased to be able to present that cheque to Mrs. Gough and to know that out of the Lottery Fund — which, as the member for Omineca said, results from "gambling" — money was put to good use to assist in the betterment of our young people of this province.

Naramata received $1,000 for an addition to a library, but that $1,000 is money well spent for that small community.

Let me give you another one that might be a little different. It deals with the winter feeding for California bighorn sheep just outside of Oliver. The South Okanagan Sportsman's Association was assisted in that one — of course, our California bighorn sheep are a very important tourist attraction for that area.

There was assistance to the Osoyoos Community Theatre, which resulted in a lot of activity for our young people who put on musical entertainment. The community can enjoy listening to those orchestras and bands providing entertainment.

Another small one was $275 from the Provincial Secretary's office to the Summerland senior swimmers' association so they could attend the B.C. championships in Victoria. Two hundred and seventy-five dollars doesn't mean much, but to those people it meant a great deal, and in my opinion it's money well spent.

I've just named a few of them, to say to the Provincial Secretary, who administers that fund, that you can't give us all the requests we ask for, Mr. Minister, but as MLAs we certainly do appreciate the ones you do grant us, because it's money well spent that assists our local communities.

MR. BARBER: A couple of days ago I asked the Provincial Secretary if he would review and be prepared to table with this committee at an appropriate time the memorandum from Mr. Heal proposing the establishment of a group of media advisers to assist the government. Has the minister read the memo, and if so, is he prepared to accept our request for its tabling in this House?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Member, I have examined the document I think you're referring to. It's a letter or a memorandum from the new deputy minister, but it is marked "confidential" to other ministries, and I don't really think it would be appropriate, any more than any other document between ministries.... After all, we hire these officials in a confidential capacity; they have their oath under the act and so on. It doesn't have information in it that is that vital to confidentiality, but I just think it would be inappropriate under the circumstances. As well, it's a confidential letter; it sets out his desire to meet with officials in the ministries or the ministers, having to do with his function to be of assistance and to coordinate their activities and so on.

In answer to your question, I undertook to consider it, but upon consideration I really don't think it would be appropriate.

MR. BARBER: Well, I guess, we'll just have to table our own copy. It's certainly well known in the public service that if you want your memo to be paid attention to, you mark it "confidential"; if you want it to appear in the press, you mark it "personal and confidential — not to be given to the Vancouver Sun or shown to Pat Jordan."

However, the minister, regrettably, is setting a very dangerous precedent. The minister has tried to convince us that Mr. Heal is a neutral and non-partisan public servant. Some, who are skeptical, doubt him. The minister has gone on to say that the official opposition and everyone is entitled to access to the services of Mr. Heal. Thank you very much; we want access to his memos too. Because, you see, if he's working for the people and not for the party, if he's working for the government and not for Social Credit, if he's working for the taxpayers and not the Premier, then he's got nothing to hide. The minister himself said just now that he can't find anything in the letter that is particularly confidential. Good. Let's take you at your word too and establish a good precedent. Table the memo.

You see, there is a difference, Mr. Chairman, between the official opposition tabling a memo that comes into our hands in the usual way — through public servants, through wastepaper baskets; however it comes, we know not....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Oh, gosh, it could even be Audrey. We have no idea how it arrives. We don't read out stolen telegrams, however.

Nonetheless, it's a different thing for this Legislature to have a minister set an important precedent and establish a worthwhile policy by, from the beginning, being open and up-front about all the activities of Mr. Heal, who, we are told, is non-partisan and not devoted to Social Credit at all, but only devoted to public information. If that's true, he's got nothing to hide. If that's the case, there is no reason to keep the memo secret. If that were true at all, there would be no reason for the minister to hesitate. The minister himself just now admitted that there is nothing terribly worthy of being kept confidential in the letter itself. Well, if the minister knows that and if what we know is also the case, then the minister has no defence, no reply and no competent answer to give other than: yes, sure.

You know, just because it is marked "confidential," Mr. Chairman, doesn't mean that it is confidential at all. Anyone can mark anything "confidential" and pretend that it has some content that should be kept from the public and from this committee. I could mark my telephone book "confidential" — it doesn't mean anything, though. What's important is whether or not the content deserves to be held confidential. The minister has now admitted that it doesn't.

[ Page 5337 ]

Well, you've set a very poor precedent and done nothing but add further fuel to the fire being tended by those who doubt that Mr. Heal is performing anything other than a partisan job for a desperately partisan administration that's trying to get re-elected. If it's not the case, prove it. If it's not the case, show it. If it's not the case, reveal the documents and grant the official opposition access to all those materials. Just because someone thinks it's worthwhile to stamp something "confidential" doesn't mean that it's authentically confidential at all. You've read it and you've admitted to the committee that you don't find anything in it that's particularly confidential. Well, fair enough. Our familiarity with the correspondence draws us to the same conclusion. But the issue is that it's important for you to set the precedent, the policy and the pattern here in this committee.

The opposition can release, as we have done many times, all sorts of leaked documents. We're glad to do it, and we consider it part of our duty. When Social Credit was in opposition it did the same thing for the same reasons. No problem. But if you want to convince us, if you want to persuade anyone that Mr. Heal is in fact neutral and non-partisan, then you've got to do something to persuade us. I argue that one of the things you should do is to table that memo and all related correspondence. If it's not confidential, don't conceal it. If it's not worth hiding, don't hide it at all, because if you keep doing that sort of thing, inevitably people are going to wonder what you're up to.

When I first made this request a couple of days ago we said we do not expect to be granted access to genuinely confidential documents that make budget proposals or deal with certain personnel matters or with amendments to or proposals for legislation. It's fair enough, to us, that the government keep that sort of thing authentically confidential. We don't object to that in the least. But to the best of our knowledge there's nothing genuinely confidential in Mr. Heal's memo, and the minister himself admitted as much this afternoon. Therefore I ask the minister to reconsider to take this committee into his confidence, and thereby the whole people of British Columbia, and do something to clean up the not entirely creditable reputation that the deputy minister has unfortunately earned in his first few weeks in office. He didn't get off to a very good start by going to a Social Credit meeting. His poor start has been worsened by hiring two Hollywood fixers to try to improve the Premier's personal image, and that of the Deputy Premier and a few of the other losers in cabinet. That's also a fairly poor way to get off. We ask the minister to reconsider and do something now, in a dramatic and visible way, to reassure people that what Mr. Heal is doing is open and above board. Disclose the document. Release the memo. Let us see for ourselves. The people of B.C. would be considerably interested if you'd be prepared to do that.

There's a second matter I'd like to raise with the minister. I received correspondence on September 14 last year from a constituent who may or may not have been directly in touch with the minister — I honestly can't tell from his letter. He raises a very interesting point about the distribution of lottery tickets. It's more than a small technicality. What he's pointing out, and what I'd be grateful to have the minister's comments on, is whether or not, inadvertently, tickets are being put in the barrel that have no place being there, as the result of unsold tickets being counted among the total numbers of those tickets available for the draw. It's not a small matter, because it may give a false weight to the outcome and wrongly represent what's actually going on when these tickets are drawn. I can do not much better than to read the key paragraphs of his letter and ask the minister for comment.

"The writer, over the past two or three years, has endeavoured to secure support for a much-needed correction in the matter of ticket draws, but up to the present no change appears in the offing. Under the present method it is possible that no major prize winners will actually be drawn, due to the fact that the tickets have not been sold but are drawn."

He goes on to say that he thinks this might constitute some form of fraud.

"We realize that if no claims are presented, this prize money, after one year, goes into future draws. However, the same thing could occur at that time. Again, we are buying tickets on a specific draw and should be accorded a fair chance against only live tickets, not against dummy numbers which are unsold but in the draw."

I wonder if the minister could first of all advise whether or not this gentleman's information is correct. To the extent that we could find anything out about it, it is correct that both — in his words — "live" and "dummy" or unsold tickets are included in the general draw, and that the numbers provided during the period of a draw include those of both sold and unsold tickets. In fact, if that's the case — and it appears to be, but I'm happy to be corrected if this information is wrong — what that seems to suggest is that there is a significantly unfair bias. If persons who purchase tickets are competing on the chance of the draw against the numbers of tickets which were never purchased at all but which are included in the draw, this seems to prejudice the fair outcome and, in fact, to allow tickets to be drawn that were never purchased, the value of which is then returned to the value of the Lottery Fund itself.

He goes on to observe as follows. Again, I'd appreciate the minister's comments. He has obtained information that some 850,000 tickets are handled weekly. He's referring, of course, to the Express, to Loto and to the Provincial draws, not all of which are directly governed by this province — indirectly, though, in most cases. There are approximately two million tickets going out in a grand ticket draw. He thinks there is a one-in-three chance that a live buyer has the opportunity of claiming a prize. He's observing that in certain draws 1.5 million to 3.5 million tickets is the spread. It may well be that as few as 850,000 are actually sold. The rest are not live tickets.

What he wants to do is secure correct data on the experience of the lotteries branch here as to what actually happens in regard to unclaimed prizes. He has found out that Loto Canada, for instance, has obtained something like $11 million worth of unclaimed prizes. It may well be that a significant number of those unclaimed tickets are tickets that were never sold in the first place. As he put it, these are dummy tickets: they're unsold, but they are counted in the general draw.

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could tell me, first of all, if he's prepared to reconsider the matter of Mr. Heal's memo. Secondly, could he inform me whether or not this information — to the extent that we've been able to check it out — is correct? It would appear to be. If it's not, that's good, and I'll write back correspondingly. If the information is correct, though, could the Provincial Secretary tell us what steps can be taken to make it a fair draw so that all of the

[ Page 5338 ]

tickets are, as my correspondent puts it, live tickets, so the person who has actually purchased the ticket is not competing, so to speak, in a draw against a ticket that wasn't sold to anyone and that will simply be returned as a so-called unclaimed prize?

HON. MR. WOLFE: To answer the member's question, I would appreciate more detail on the letter he has. Perhaps I can assist him in replying to it. It is true that in every draw there may be some unsold tickets involved. The very nature of the system, which involves so many hundreds of thousands of tickets, is such that it's numbers that are drawn. There are bound to be some unsold tickets in the draw. As a matter of fact, I'm told that Loto Canada has some 37 million-dollar prizes which have never been claimed.

What happens to the $37 million? This money is carried over, held for a year, and then used for a bonus draw. If I can assist you with that letter, I'll be happy to do so.

I think I gave you an answer to the other question earlier. It's just a matter of precedent in terms of distributing documents of that kind, which are privileged.

MR. BARBER: Last fall when my correspondent was digging into the matter, Loto Canada told him that $11 million was unclaimed. If in fact 37 million-dollar prizes are unclaimed — and I'm sure it's correct — that's really extraordinary. I wonder if the minister thinks that altogether fair. If it is the case that some portion of X number of tickets in the draw have not actually been purchased by anyone, that tends to discriminate in a fairly significant way against bona fide purchasers having, if you will, the best and fairest possible chance to win. Presumably you could have a draw in which there are 1,000 tickets, only 500 of which have been sold. That obviously reduces your chance to win by a half. If you're competing against live persons who bought other tickets, then everyone's competing on the same basis and that's fair. But when in fact you're competing against dead tickets — tickets that were never sold and are not legitimately part of the draw, except because at the moment that's how the system works — then it strikes me that that's really very prejudicial to a fair outcome.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

My constituent takes the matter somewhat more strongly. I'll send the minister a copy of his letter. I'll be very glad to do that. I didn't know whether or not you had received it. I wonder if the minister would entertain some thought and give some consideration to redesigning the system of draw so that the tickets drawn are exclusively from among those which have been purchased. To include any percentage of so-called dead tickets in the draw seems to me to be extremely unfair. My constituent calls it fraud; that's a harsher word than I would use. Nonetheless, it prejudicially determines an outcome in a way that I don't think is fair by any standard and by the standards and conditions set out by the persons who sell the tickets in the first place. People should be competing against other live tickets and not against dead tickets that were never purchased by human beings. That just seems to me self-evident. I wonder if there's some other system that the minister could consider so that that system doesn't continue.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We should all be reminded that this is an interprovincial system going across western Canada, and all across Canada in the case of another ticket.

There's quite an effort made to not overdistribute in British Columbia and western Canada. Most often there are not enough tickets. In our case here, there are very few unclaimed. I made the reference earlier to Loto Canada.

MR. BARBER: Do you know how many there are unclaimed in the Provincial?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't have the figure here. I could try to get it for you. It's very few in relation to the total. It is an interprovincial matter. It's not something we can resolve right here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. LEVI: Eh? What did you say? She's not in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. LEVI: I thought you said Okanagan North.

God, that's pretty horrifying, Mr. Chairman — 37 million-dollar prizes unclaimed. I was going to suggest to the Premier, now that he's in the House, that what we should do is give some rebates on the BCRIC shares and compete for them at $1,000 a ticket. That would be a much better gamble than the thing he dreamt up.

I want to ask the minister — he's surrounded by all sorts of staff there.... I don't see the president of the B.C. Buildings Corporation there which can mean one of two things. Either the minister thought he was going to escape without any questions on the B.C. Buildings Corporation.... Have you got somebody there who can answer questions on the B.C. Buildings Corporation?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You have? Well, that's good, that's a change. Will the man who represents the B.C. Buildings Corporation please raise his hand so that I can direct my questions through the...? Oh, my God. Now we're in trouble. I can remember when he was responsible for the B.C. Systems Corporation. Yes, it was all a one-way street in those days: my asking questions and the minister just gulping every five minutes.

The first question I want to put to the minister is this. In 1978 the revenue of the B.C. Buildings Corporation was $91 million, in 1979 it was $121 million, in 1980 it was $136 million, and this year's projected revenue, based on the estimates in the estimate book, is in excess of $176 million. That's pretty close to a 100 percent increase in revenues in four years, given the end of the present fiscal year.

We've had some examples of increased buildings charges in two ministries — particularly in one ministry that went from $3 million to $10 million. One of the great difficulties with trying to understand the operation of the B.C. Buildings Corporation is just how they charge — on the square foot or the square metre basis, I think it is now. Last year during the estimates I asked the minister a question about that. He did write me a letter, and I thank him for that. The letter came on August 21 and he said:

[ Page 5339 ]

"In response to your recent question in the Legislature during the debate on my estimates, I am pleased to provide the following information. The buildings owned by the B.C. Buildings Corporation have been classified into two separate categories: market-comparable properties and special purpose properties."

He went on to define what market-comparable and special purpose properties were, and then we came to the question that basically I was trying to get an answer to.

"For all buildings owned by the corporation, the operating and maintenance costs of the building, taxes and administration charges are calculated separately from the base rent, and are passed through to the building tenants as part of the monthly billing. Operating and maintenance costs amounted to $2.53 per square foot for the 1979-80 fiscal year, and this average compares very favourably to statistics published by the Building Owners and Managers Association" — known amongst its friends as BOMA. "Grants in lieu of property taxes are passed on to the corporation's clients at actual cost."

I wrote to BOMA — the building owners — and I asked them if they could let me have the report that they had done. They did a study; it's called.... Anyway, this is the letter they wrote back.

"Dear Mr. Levi:

"Members of the Building Owners and Managers Association in Canada and across North America submit confidential information on building operations annually to BOMA International, which analyzes and publishes this data as the Downtown Suburban Office Building Experience Exchange Report. This report costs $95.

"The average operating and maintenance costs for buildings in Vancouver in 1979 were shown as $3.67 per square foot. We believe it was to this figure that Mr. Wolfe referred."

We're dealing basically here with costs that were averaged out in 1979.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The average is what?

MR. LEVI: About $3.67 per square foot. There's a little interpolation needed here, because we're now into the square metre thing.

The thing that is always missing from the annual report is some better understanding of what is actually going on in terms of the rentals. If you look at the revenue figures that I gave at the beginning, we've gone from $91 million in 1978 to a projection of at least $176 million this year. It's true that there are some significant increases in the square footage. There is no doubt that they've acquired new buildings. What I find particularly difficult to understand is related to what took place in one particular ministry this year, where the rental charges went from $3 million to $10 million. Now the only answer that the minister can give on that, I suppose, is to look at square-footage costs. Certainly we did get an answer in the debate concerning that. In that debate, the figures weren't quite the same as quoted by the minister; they're somewhat higher than what we've been talking about around this business of $2.50 or $3 or $3.67. I got the impression during the debate that we were talking about $7 or $8.

Now let me show this to you, Mr. Minister. There has been a feeling on this side of the House — and I know from talking to some of the ministers there's a feeling within the ministries — that they're being overcharged for rent. We're not dealing with a $2.53 per square foot figure; we're not really dealing with $3.67; we're really dealing with something much higher. If we take the one ministry that we dealt with that had a dramatic increase, we were talking about $7, $8 and $9 per square foot. What are you basing the costs on? After all, you've got to understand that the revenues have gone up dramatically in four years. My gosh, you've gone between 1979 and this current year to something like $60 million. That's a 50 percent increase. What is actually happening with the rents? We have no real understanding of this. I know there has been a change in management. I did have an opportunity to talk to the individual who is now the president, Mr. Dolezal, but he was not president then. We need to have some understanding because there are continuing complaints out of the ministry that they feel they're being overcharged for the rental.

Another charge is made — it's made more in the general real estate industry — that B.C. Buildings Corporation has become something of a pace-setter. Rather than following the trend, it seems to be setting the trend. This is part of the accusation that you get when you're government. If you pay too much — for instance, if you don't relate salaries in some way to the private sector — the private sector make accusations that you're setting the trend. A lot of discussion is going on in the private sector that B.C. Buildings Corporation is becoming, or is in fact, a trend-setter.

We need to have a better understanding of the way B.C. Buildings Corporation operates. On a number of occasions in debate in this House we have asked that this corporation, along with the Systems Corporation, be placed in the hands of the Crown corporations reporting committee. I've said this before, but I want to say it again. The government missed a golden opportunity — and certainly the members of the committee did — to monitor a Crown corporation that was new. It's a vastly different experience than looking at Crown corporations that have been operating for a large number of years. That has not happened. I hope we can in fact do it and bring the members of the board before the public accounts committee. I know that it's a Crown corporation, but we need much more time than you can usually get from the public accounts committee to do that kind of work.

The key thing is that we need a better explanation than we've got about just how these rentals are set. What average rental are we talking about this year? We've already had a statement made which sets a trend which is infinitely higher than the figure of $3.67, albeit that's a 1979 figure, which was given to us by the Building Owners and Managers Association. Are we dealing, in fact, with $8 and $9 a square foot? I'd be surprised if we're not, frankly, because that's the kind of price that you pay in downtown Vancouver. I'm not that familiar with what is paid in Victoria. You can go up to $15 a square foot. If you want to build, it costs you $500 a square foot to build.

The first question is whether perhaps the minister will get up and give us some idea of the rental policy beyond what we dealt with last year. I appreciate he wrote me and said:

"For all buildings owned by the corporation, the operating and maintenance costs of the building taxes and administration charges are calculated separately from the base rent and are passed through to building

[ Page 5340 ]

tenants as part of the monthly billing. Operating and maintenance costs amounted to $2.53 for the 1979-80 fiscal year."

In fact that is $1.14 less than what the BOMA people were talking about in their letter for the same year. I don't think the B.C. Buildings Corporation is operating on a $3.50 per square foot rental cost, given the enormous increase in the revenue of that department. Those costs are way beyond that. Let's see whether the minister can give us some idea exactly what is going on in there.

I have a number of other things I want to ask the minister, but perhaps he might get up — I notice he's been talking with his officials. He may have something to say. If not, I'd like to get up again, because there are a number of other things. Would you like to get up now or do you still need some more time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm just responding to the questions regarding the increased revenues in the annual report of the Buildings Corporation, which I think the member said had escalated in 1981 to $176 million — that's projected. He referred to one particular ministry which had gone from $3 million to $10 million, namely Forests. The simple answer to that is that Forests has just gone into a phase-in in terms of the transfer of properties in the outlying regions to the Buildings Corporation. In looking at these figures over four years, you must remember that this has been a transition. It didn't all happen on day one in terms of the acquisition or transfer of all of these properties immediately.

You might be interested to note that in terms of the comparable market concept used by the corporation, a system which is in effect similar to that of the Buildings Corporation, it has now been introduced by the federal government. Recently we had correspondence with them on their so-called revenue dependency program. Just this spring they introduced a concept of charging market rates for all properties within the Crown. In many respects it would appear they are modelling it after the concept which was pioneered here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Also, I'm informed through information in addition to the letter of last August which I gave you, wherein I suggested that the maintenance cost amounted to $2.53 per square foot for the 1979-80 fiscal year, that the figure for the 1980-81 fiscal year is $2.86. I don't yet have the projected figure on that for next year, of course. Some further information: I'm told that in a separate report covering occupancy charges for 1981-82 base rents average $62.90 per square metre and operating costs average $56.39 per square metre, for a total of $119.29 per square metre. This compares very well with the corporation's costs for facilities it leases from the private sector; that cost is $116.67 per square metre. As you say, we're on to metres now. All reporting is at that level.

MR. LEVI: What we're trying to arrive at is my perception of what is a very large increase in revenue. Revenues reflect the rental charges. In 1978-79 the Buildings Corporation — and I'll give round figures....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You know, it's amazing; that minister used to get up and scream "Jobs!" but he doesn't do that any more.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I've sent you a letter, and I want to see you and talk to you.

Let's just look at the properties owned by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. In 1978 there were 1,135,000 square metres. In 1979 they went to 1,321,000 square metres. That was a 16 percent increase. In 1979-80 we had an 8 percent increase. From 1978 to 1980 there was an increase of 26 percent in the owned property. That I understand, and that's very acceptable. You took on a number of buildings that were completed, including the courthouse, which is a very large building.

Now I want to go to leased properties. In 1978-79 the leased properties increased by 21 percent, and in 1979-80 they went up another 6 percent. In that period from 1978 to 1980 there was almost a 30 percent increase in leased properties. It's really quite dramatic. If you want the square metres, it went from something like 275,000 square metres to 356,000 square metres. When the B.C. Buildings Corporation was set up there was the business of acquiring properties and there was the question of doing something about the construction of properties. But what seems to be happening — perhaps the minister can explain it — is that there is a rather dramatic increase in the leased property aspect. This is contained in the annual report, but not in the detail that I went into, because we had one of our researchers break it down. You've got something like a 26 percent increase in owned properties in the period 1978-80, but 29.4 percent from 1978 to 1980 in leased properties. Is there a trend? After all, there will be a limit to what you're going to get in the owned properties, because the building program which is projected for quite some time is not all that large. I would suggest — perhaps the minister would comment on this — that somehow B.C. Buildings Corporation is into the lease business, the leasing of properties, in a rather large way. I'm asking him why that is.

It's not slow growth, I admit. From 1978 to 1980 it went up 26 percent on owned properties. Leased properties went up 29 percent. In 1978-79 there was an increase of 21 percent. In the same year the owned properties went up 16 percent. In 1979-80 owned properties went up 8 percent and leased properties went up 6.7 percent. Is there a trend, Mr. Minister? Let me ask you that and put it to you specifically. Is there a trend towards leasing or is their a trend towards building? If it's going towards leasing, why is that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Or is there no trend?

MR. LEVI: Well, for the interest of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), our constitutional expert, there is a trend; albeit only over three years. You can't really establish much of a trend over three years. It's like being married 30 years and trying to figure out in the first three years how you'll be doing in 30 years. It's very difficult, but this is a different kind of situation.

Bearing in mind that the basic thing I started saying was that the revenues of this corporation will have doubled by the time the fourth fiscal year is completed, Mr. Minister, is there a trend towards leasing as opposed to building? That was the mandate they had: "What we need, we'll build." There is some leasing. I understand that. I always saw that as a kind of interim process towards providing through construction or having people build for you. Perhaps you'd like to comment on that.

[ Page 5341 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: In answer to the member's question, I really don't think it would be fair to say that there is a conscious policy trend in that direction, but in a general way most special purpose buildings would need to be constructed. There's a special-pricing rental arrangement that is used for those. Incidentally, Treasury Board recently directed the corporation to revert to market pricing on those types of facilities — to maintain those at cost in order not to over escalate the impact that has in reverting to market pricing on special purpose buildings. In other words they, of necessity, would be required to be constructed.

I think only the market would dictate whether lease facilities are available at a price that can be afforded or whether, in turn, it's necessary to construct our own. It seems to me that general-purpose buildings would be much better leased — more flexible for future disposition and perhaps no capital investment. Obviously from the figures you've just given, there has been a trend in that direction. I could get you further information later.

MR. LEVI: The next point I'd like to deal with is something that I've raised previously in question period both with the minister and with his colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I didn't really get a very satisfactory reply. In fact, I got no reply from the minister, and the Minister of Finance didn't give us a very good reply either. But that's okay, he's a nice guy. Maybe one day he'll learn how to answer a question.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I know you did. I couldn't understand it when I read it in the Blues and neither could the press.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't here.

MR. LEVI: I do read the Blues. He always answers questions when I'm away. That's the first time I've been away all year.

To deal with the question of the new building: the monument to the Minister of Finance in his riding, which will be built to house the B.C. Systems Corporation. I've covered this before, but I'd like the minister to give some attention to this. One of the first questions that I think is important for both ministers is to understand that the B.C. Buildings Corporation was set up to provide accommodation, whether rental, construction, leasing or whatever, for ministries and agencies. They've done a fair amount of that. Just to refresh the minister's memory, the B.C. Systems Corporation did a status report. I'd better read this because it is new to the staff unless they read the Blues. It was a status report dated February 27, 1981....

AN HON. MEMBER: What page?

MR. LEVI: Oh, come now. I'll table it. It's a good page. It's part of what obviously is a much larger report, but it's okay. It gives the basic information. It's headed: "Project: B.C. Systems Corporation Physical Consolidation." I presume that means that we're going to shove them all into one building. That's okay too — a thousand people into the new building which was projected to cost in excess of $30 million. "Activity since previous status report, February 2, 1981." You know, this reads like a CIA report.

"(a) Each of the short-listed contractors" — Farmer, Wheaton, Perma, Highfield, Graham, Stevenson; it sounds like a law firm that former Attorneys-General belong to — "has been contacted. Considerable discussion has taken place with each contractor. These discussions have encompassed our approach (i.e. design followed by tendering for construction) type of building, location, cost, schedule, etc. In addition, Stevenson and Highfield have taken time to show me facilities they have actually built, while Highfield went one step further by accompanying me to sites under construction and explaining the construction process (at a high level and in terms I can understand)."

I just want to make a comment about that. Here we have an individual making a report to the president in which he's talking about how they're going to go about selecting the contractor. The first thing that occurs to me is: what is the B.C. Systems Corporation doing in the construction business? That's what I want to know. He says, if I might repeat: "...while Highfield went one step further by accompanying me to sites under construction and explaining the construction process at a high level and in terms that I can understand." Well, that's very nice. I don't know why you would want to be explaining to somebody who was obviously a layman about the complexities of construction, particularly in relation to this job, when we already have in government circles a B.C. Buildings Corporation which is skilled in this and which, up to that time, was the construction manager. They were dealing with it.

To carry on: "Perma has declined to participate in bidding on the proposal, as they feel it's outside their present capacity."

He goes to item (b) of the report: "As a result of our decision to not continue the project with BCBC as construction manager, and a subsequent change in approach to the project (i.e. contractor versus architect), the request for proposal documents has been substantially rewritten. This document is still receiving...."

This is a very crucial point of cooperation or non-cooperation between two ministries dealing, in fact, with two of the newest and largest Crown corporations. B.C. Systems Corporation wants to build a building. That's fine. What they're doing, setting out on their own.... First of all, they set out to fire B.C. Buildings Corporation. That's in fact what they did. The minister said: "Oh, we didn't fire them; we just dispensed with their services." His ability to phrase euphemisms is incredible.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You keep saying they weren't let go. The minister insists they did not fire them, they just simply dispensed with their services. My god, who does he think he is, Hayakawa? Don't let's get into a semantical argument; you fired them.

AN HON. MEMBER: "You're not fired, but this is your last paycheque."

MR. LEVI: Right, that's it. "Down the road, baby, just go for a walk. We're not firing you, but don't come back."

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't be fired if you haven't been engaged.

[ Page 5342 ]

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Minister, now you put your foot in it. You always put your foot in it. You have what they call onopedodontia — you and that mate of yours from Municipal Affairs. You've both got it — the ability to put your foot into your mouth. He says in this report....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want to know what it is.

MR. LEVI: Oh, come now, Bill, you're not upset by that little statement. Onopedodontia. It's got to do with your mouth and your feet. Actually it was a phrase that Prince Philip coined some time ago when he was making reference to somebody; I can't remember who it was.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, we just heard the Minister of Finance saying across the floor: "We never even had them in our employ, or engaged them." It says very specifically in the report: "as a result of our decision to not continue the project with BCBC as construction managers." Surely there were discussions; didn't they discuss it? That's what I'd like to know from the minister. Were there discussions with BCBC about building this building? And if there were, why were they let go? There is an important issue here.

HON. MR. WOLFE. Yes, there were discussions, I understand, between the Buildings Corporation and the Systems Corporation, but the Systems Corporation, like any other Crown corporation, is not a captive client of the Buildings Corporation with respect to accommodations any more than B.C. Hydro or ICBC, who do not deal through the Buildings Corporation by necessity. The Systems Corporation simply determined that they prefer to own and project-manage the construction of their own building, but they did contract with B.C. Buildings Corporation for technical advice to be provided on request at any time during the design and construction of the building.

MR. LEVI: Let me just ask you this.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Do you want to speak on this? Well, you can't. Speak on it tomorrow. I'm not giving up. I'm in the process of questioning the minister. Good lord, it takes me enough time to get up.... Do you know how difficult it is for a little guy like me to catch that guy's attention? I know what you want to do.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I've got the same problem.

MR. LEVI: You do? Well, I'll tell you what you've got to do, Tom. You've got to lean forward and catch his eye.

Let me just ask the minister this. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) got up and knocked me right off my stride. I've forgotten what it is I wanted to say.

Let me say this to the minister. I don't know whether the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was aware of the delicate negotiations that have gone on between the B.C. Buildings Corporation and the Architectural Institute. For almost two years they've been trying to resolve some problems they've had about presentation and how you do design. Those were important discussions that were going on. The minister says they're not captive. Maybe they're not captive; they're also not informed of the process. The first time, after they dispensed with your services — they said they didn't need you; they were letting you go — they went out with a proposal to the architects, and the Architectural Institute came back and advised all their architects not to respond to the proposal. I don't know whether the Minister of Finance knew what was going on at the time. I don't know whether the president of B.C. Systems Corporation knew, but for two years B.C. Buildings Corporation was negotiating to settle its differences with the architects. They settled them, and along comes the B.C. Systems Corporation, who knows nothing about building. It's not an issue that they're captive clients. The issue is that if you've got within the realm of the government a group that has an expert body of people, go to them; don't fire them and then make the idiotic mistake of putting out a proposal that is immediately rejected by the architects, partly on the basis that they had a quarrel with the B.C. Buildings Corporation for almost two years. He says they're not a captive group. They're not a captive group; they're a stupid group. It's incredible.

It reminds me — if I might just digress for a minute — of our friend Mr. Heal. He comes from out of the province, and he knows — or at least he should have known — that this whole political area is a big minefield. So what does he do? He goes wading into the minefield, gets blown....

If the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) wants to say something, let him get up. But don't sit there yippy-yippying.

He gets into the middle of the minefield, gets blown up a couple of times, and then he's learned to play the game. I don't know why he didn't seek advice. After all, in this government the golden handshake has been given to Mr. Brown, who knew about the minefield; it's been given to John Arnett, who knew about the minefield. But he didn't go and seek that information any more than that Minister of Finance bothered to get the advice from B.C. Buildings Corporation, even to the extent of saying: "How do you make a proposal to the architect?" Not by appearing to be stupid by making the proposal after you've fired BCBC and having the thing rejected by the Architectural Institute. That's simply messing up some two years of what apparently were successful negotiations and resolutions of a long-standing problem. If you're talking about government and a corporation and an agency that people can take advantage of, then we have a first-class example of a group of people who know nothing about the business of getting into the buildings and rejecting the advice, if they even sought it, from the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

That's the issue, Mr. Chairman. It's not, as the minister says, that they're not captive. They walked into a minefield and had no idea what they were getting into. They were made to look very foolish by the Architectural Institute when that proposal was rejected. That, to me, is failing to take advantage of the kinds of skills that the minister talks about in terms of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. After all, they're going into their fourth year of operation. They've learned something; they've got these kinds of skills, and they reject them. What we don't know is why. We're going to have to wait until we get to the Minister of Finance's estimates to find out why they rejected them.

I have some ideas. I know there was an argument about the size of the room, the size of the carpets, how big the plants were going to be for the high and low guys. They were going into a rug-ranking business, you know. Wall-to-wall carpet,

[ Page 5343 ]

not to the wall for deputies, but up to the wall for associate deputies — or whatever they call those officials — and the carpet comes towards the centre of the room as you go down in rank. There are scatter rugs and the occasional prayer mat for those liable to go down the road.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've got an answer for you.

MR. LEVI: Do you want to adjourn now? He's got an answer. He's been on his knees for nearly 15 minutes trying to find an answer. Go ahead.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for his observations on the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I think the House would like to know that the next movie to be turned out by the visual centre is going to be an epic. It goes back into the history of British Columbia. It's called "The $100 Million Man," starring Clark Levi. It's going to be done in black and white with a little red ink thrown in.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Marketing Board for the year 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled letters and documents referred to in committee.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.