[ Page 6601 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 60: minister's office –– 6601

Mr. Howard

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Cocke

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)

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

MR. HOWARD: All I'm doing is standing up to see whether the minister is going to respond to those important questions we put to him the other day.

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

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to some unfinished comments and some unfinished questions of the other day dealing with the proliferation of commercial bingos in the province. I want to go back to an article that was in the Vancouver Sun on May 10. I'll just quote from that article and paraphrase some of the more important points of it. It says that there is another all-new industry springing up in the province to help the unemployed fill in time and assist the poor in their desperate bid for a jackpot. It's the bingo industry, and unfortunately this is no joke. In the name of raising money for charity, a group of clever business operators is transforming the church basement game of chance into a burgeoning and profitable industry. It goes on to say:

"The names of those involved in the new enterprise include some of the province's most prominent entrepreneurs, as well as members of Premier Bill Bennett's own family. One of the major players is Tom Capozzi of Kelowna, brother of Vancouver-based businessman Herb Capozzi."

It goes on to outline the concerns regarding the transfer of dollars away from the historic charitable organizations that have long run the game, such as the churches and the service clubs in the communities, to these private entrepreneurs. Here's an article written in the Abbotsford paper on March 13. It says:

"At least two separate Mission organizations that depend heavily on bingo revenues to finance their programs are 'worried sick.' Robert Enoch, executive director of the Mission and District Association for the Mentally Retarded and Mission Indian Friendship Centre...declared Tuesday that disaster for their groups is inevitable unless they can regain Mission's bingo populace. The declining attendance problem, the pair explained, is mainly due to a new, more sophisticated bingo operation in Abbotsford which offers attractive cash prizes and modern facilities."

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

Here's another article of May 11 in the Vancouver Sun regarding the proliferation of bingo in the Kelowna area. This is a quote of Lynne Smith, secretary-manager of the Kelowna Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 26: "The new halls have really hurt us. They're closing us down. We used to have two bingos a week, one run by the ladies' auxiliary and one by the branch, and we're down to just one a week. I think we'll soon be forced to close the other." That article goes on.

Here's a letter written to the Provincial Secretary's office, dated April 29, from the Royal Canadian Air Cadets from Mission, British Columbia. "Some or all of our organizations are going to lose," — this is in respect to the proliferation of commercial halls in that area — "and it will hurt the people benefiting from the bingos. The Legion bingo, if enough of their patrons go to the new hall, may have to close down their bingo, and then quite a number of Mission citizens will lose a lot." A number of organizations receive grants from the Legion, including the air cadets, the senior citizens and high school graduates, to name a very few. I've received many more pieces of correspondence, letters written directly to me.

[10:15]

I think that perhaps one of the more pertinent comes from — and I received this just yesterday — the Abbotsford Old Age Pensioners' Organization. It's addressed to me, and it's over the signature of Pearl Meek, president of the old age pensioners' organization. It says:

"Your stand in favour of 'traditional church basement operations' is extremely gratifying, and we congratulate you for your request that an official inquiry be made into the situation."

Here is the pertinent information.

"The increase in 'bingo barns' is a matter that has been of some concern to us for months past. Our area has been flooded with commercial outlets that operate to the detriment of organizations such as ours that are non-profit in scope. These smaller operations are being pushed to the wall, and one large concern that produced thousands of dollars for local community projects has been forced to close down."

Those are the details, Mr. Minister. Those are the results of the unfettered proliferation of these commercial halls.

The reason I have requested that we investigate this matter more thoroughly, that we have another look at it and see if we can possibly alter or tighten up the regulations somewhat, is not to knock the commercial halls out — there may be a place for them — but to give everybody a fairer break in the competition for that bingo dollar. These are recommendations that I've made time and time again — recommendations that the minister does not seem to treat seriously. And I might point out to the minister that right in the heart of solid Socred country the old age pensioners of Abbotsford are requesting that such an inquiry be held. Your own constituents, Mr. Minister, are requesting that. There obviously is a lot of concern there.

I think a lot of people discount commercial bingo in British Columbia as being nickel-and-dime stuff. It's not. It's big bucks. It has to be big bucks when we get the Capozzis and Skalbanias getting into the game. Then you know it's big bucks. As a matter of fact, the bingo turnover throughout British Columbia is in the neighbourhood of $20 million a year. That's not pin money by any standards. Now we find the friends of government directly profiting from the proceeds of these commercial bingo halls.

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

[ Page 6602 ]

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all the member talks about people in British Columbia profiting, making ripoff profits — he didn't use that word, but essentially that's what he meant — from the bingo business. Essentially all they are doing is renting space, and the non-profits and the charitable organizations in British Columbia make the profit for charitable purposes.

The member has changed his language slightly. He's no longer asking for an inquiry; he's suggesting that there should be an investigation. I presume that it's because of the statements made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) the other day during the debate, in which the member for Nanaimo said that there was no need for an inquiry. I wish those socialists over there would get their act together. One is asking for an inquiry, and another is saying that there is no need for an inquiry. There's a lot of inconsistency on the other side of the House as far as bingo is concerned.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're still asking for an inquiry? You're asking for an inquiry, and the member for Nanaimo says there's no need for an inquiry. So there's a lot of inconsistency over there in the opposition. You'd better make up your minds as to whether there should be or shouldn't be. You leave me baffled as to what should take place because of your inconsistencies over there. I'm absolutely baffled.

I think I'll just have to read into the record — and that's very difficult to do, to baffle me — some statements made by the member for Nanaimo when he talked about bingos. I think the member from the North Okanagan wasn't listening very closely when the member spoke. He had this to say:

As for the talk about bingo halls, bingo palaces or bingo operators, this is not the first time it's happened. Every hall that's built in Nanaimo or anywhere else is the newest one in that community that day. Certainly, the CCF hall in Nanaimo right now is the newest one for that particular activity to take place. When the minister talks about 14 organizations using one hall in Kelowna, there must be some 28 using the CCF hall in Nanaimo.

I corrected him; there are 21.

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

Certainly in my experience in Nanaimo, when the minister's staff felt that some charitable organization was getting more than they were entitled to, they interfered and said that organization A should have a bingo only one out of four weeks, rather than every week, and that spread the largesse around, if you like. But in any case, he didn't interfere with the people who were playing, and that worked.

Prior to the building of that hall, the newest hall in town was Mount Benson Legion. That almost destroyed Branch 10 Legion's bingos.

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

When the Super-Valu closed down and the Elks moved in and opened up a hall, that hurt a lot of bingos. Every time a new building opens up, initially it hurts other organizations and then the crowd seems to build and the volume increases, and more and more people are playing bingo. I don't know why. I couldn't come to do it myself, but it happens.

The halls are getting better. They have machinery now that will actually remove some of that smoke. You can almost breathe in the newest halls, and to think the people would complain about having halls like that and say to people: "You should go back to the church basements." The first bingo that I worked in was a room large enough to hold 30 people, and the smoke was so thick you could hardly see from one end of that small room to the other.

Ours is not the last one to be built. A new one is going to open up in Nanaimo in July, I believe. A new bingo palace in Nanaimo. Now if our rent is too high, which it isn't — the minister gave the figures in the House — it comes out to $7 per square foot per year. That's not much to charge today for a new building. A new one is opening up; I don't know what their rates will be, but they'll have to be competitive, and the CCF hall rent will have to be competitive, or the crowds will go elsewhere and the operators will go elsewhere. It's the ones that are successful, the licensees, if you like.... I don't know how many there are — I've lost count, but certainly substantially more than 14 in the CCF hall in Nanaimo.

Really, he's actually saying there is no need for an inquiry. He's saying, let competition determine where the charitable and non-profit organizations will play bingo. Even though the CCF hall collects $155,847 of rent each and every year, they're prepared to be competitive. They're prepared to compete against the marketplace. I can't understand the philosophy of that member over there. Maybe he's a little more socialist than the member for Nanaimo and doesn't believe in a competitive free enterprise society. The member for Nanaimo does. He's prepared to allow the CCF hall to compete and allow those non-profit and charitable organizations and licensees to go elsewhere.

I think I rest my case on the statements made by the member for Nanaimo. I think those two members should talk to each other sometime, instead of having their disagreements in this chamber.

MR. MacWILLIAM: If the minister's intention is to drive a wedge between members over here, my simple response is: like the Red Sea we shall part, and when he falls flat on his face we'll come back together.

Interjection.

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

I would like to point out that I don't think there really is a disagreement in principle in terms of calling for an investigation or calling for an inquiry; I maintain that I hold that position. I disagree with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), granted. Isn't it nice that members on this side of the House can be in disagreement and voice their concerns freely, instead of being coddled behind one voice, as members of the other side of the House are so frequently? Isn't it nice that members of this side of the House can demonstrate a voice of individual concern — a democratic right, in fact? I think it's refreshing, Mr. Minister — indeed, very refreshing.

I'd like to point out to the minister that I'm not the only one who has requested an investigation into this whole thing. Again, I think the minister misreads the reasons behind that. I'm not necessarily coming out against commercial bingo. There may be a place for it; I've said it time and time again. But let's make sure that the bingo dollar is not squeezed away from the charities that it has for so long gone to. That's the issue at hand.

We discussed it in detail the other day. If the minister can recall, I took him through a simple arithmetic quiz; he didn't seem to catch on to the mathematics. But perhaps if he wants to take the time at a later date, we can go through it again. The real issue is that the commercial halls limit the amount of access that the non-profit societies have in running the bingos

[ Page 6603 ]

and more and more of the bingo dollar is funnelled back to fewer and fewer organizations. That's the concern.

The other concern is the lack of adequate inspection; we've addressed that before. The fact is that the minister has fired four of the six provincial inspectors. There is inadequate inspection. The minister has not taken with any seriousness the possible infractions that I brought to his attention; he laughs them off. I would suggest that he consider that matter a little more seriously. If they are infractions that go against his own recommendations, I think he should at least give this side of the House the courtesy to proceed with an initial inspection of that.

I want to move on to what I think is really the important issue here. I think that the proliferation of commercial halls throughout British Columbia appears to be, as I mentioned, a first step towards the legalization of gambling in this province. That's really an important broad stroke of the brush that up until now we've missed. I might ask the minister whether in fact any of the latest surveys that have been done by the government, with taxpayers' money, have asked the question in terms of the legalization of gambling in British Columbia. I would wonder if the minister would care to respond as to whether those questions have been on previous government surveys.

Money is being funnelled off from traditional charities in this province. The regulations as presently prescribed are vague. Enforcement of those regulations is inadequate. The door is open for the proliferation of legalized gambling in British Columbia. If the government continues to allow this, I think the next step is that British Columbia will become the Nevada of the north — the legalization of casino gambling. But before this possibly happens, I would like to bring out some concerns that have been addressed in other areas.

In April 1985, the Calgary police commission prepared a report regarding legalized casino gambling. In the report they concluded that casinos offer an ideal environment for crime in that their operation involves large cash flows that cannot be monitored at all stages. As well, they noted that many of the strict controls limiting criminal involvement in European casinos may not be possible in Canada by reason of the Charter of Rights. To give you an example, jurisdictions that have privately operated casinos typically refuse casino licences to individuals with criminal records. A recent Queen's Bench decision in Manitoba, if the minister cares to have the reference cited, may in fact negate this restriction.

In April 1983, for the minister's information, the commonwealth of Massachusetts made an in-depth study of the economic and social consequences of introducing legalized casino gambling into the state of Massachusetts. Here are some key issues in that report.

Street crime occurring in a casino setting is likely to involve more vice and violence than street crime in non-gambling tourist areas. There is overwhelming evidence in the literature of crime that the introduction of legal casinos contributes to a substantial increase in street crime. And I don't think I'm being alarmist. I'm saying, let's have a really close look at this. If in fact this government is proceeding in this direction, let's have a very close look. These crimes include, but are not limited to, rape, murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, mugging, burglary, larceny, auto theft, narcotics, prostitution and even petty thievery. I don't think that's alarmist. I think we have to look at the logical consequences of where this government appears to be moving.

Most of these crimes occur in recreational settings where there are large groups of people with substantial amounts of money to spend, such as commercial bingo halls or legalized casinos. The casino industry itself is often the victim of criminal schemes and is a unique problem for law enforcement.

Interjection.

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

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. Hon. members, the member for Okanagan North has currently taken his place in Committee of Supply, is addressing the vote, the minister's estimates, and will be afforded every opportunity to carry on without interruption. Please proceed.

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

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

[10:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The U.S. attorney in the District of Massachusetts, in regard to legalized gambling, cited statistical evidence of increases in street crime in Nevada and Atlantic City, public corruption, involvement of local officials in land speculation and profiteering, efforts to dilute the regulatory controls, and the hiring of many former public officials by casinos. In New Jersey, the deputy director of operations, division of financial evaluation and control, New Jersey casino control commission, states that a person can audit virtually every piece of paper generated by a casino and never detect whether theft, embezzlement or skimming has occurred.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I don't raise these issues, cite this evidence, to initiate undue alarm. I simply present the evidence to the minister because I know that the minister's long-term objective may involve the further liberalization of laws presently restricting legalized gambling in this province. By liberalizing our regulations regarding commercial bingo, we take those first fleeting steps towards legalized gambling. My conclusion is that I don't think the people of British Columbia would like to see this province become the Nevada of the north.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, it's always interesting to listen to a school teacher lecture the House, Mr. Chairman. First I want to comment on his suggestion, which he has repeated on numerous occasions, that he has made certain information available to me regarding infractions in the operation of bingo halls in the Okanagan. I'll repeat again: he made no information available to me — none whatsoever. He submitted some information, which I consider to be nonsensical information, to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith).

[ Page 6604 ]

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

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, the minister has implied that I have not honoured the commitment that was requested of me in this House. That commitment has been honoured, and I suggest that.... If the minister did not receive that information that was made available, how did he know the details of that information if it was not made available?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The member will have an opportunity, after the recognized member has completed his presentation in debate, to stand up and correct any matter that the minister might state which might be incorrect.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is very touchy on that particular issue. He did not submit any information to me. He submitted some information to the Attorney-General. Even though I had requested the information, he thought it more appropriate to give it to the Attorney-General. So that's where it rests. I'm sure that the Attorney-General will respond to that so-called evidence in due course.

The member asks whether there have been surveys on attitudes regarding gambling in British Columbia. No, there have been no surveys. The reason for that is that the government of British Columbia is not in favour of legalized gambling in this province. One also has to take into consideration the fact that legalized gambling casinos, which he suggested are on the horizon for British Columbia.... That is false because before you can have casinos in any part of this country you have to have an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. From my discussions with federal ministers in recent months, I want to assure you that they're not prepared to make any amendments — not that I've suggested there should be some amendments to the Criminal Code vis-à-vis casinos. But they are going to be tightening up the Criminal Code of Canada to make sure that other provinces — not British Columbia, because the government of British Columbia's position is that we're against legalized gambling in this province.... There are other provinces that may be interested in casinos, and the federal government will make sure that that doesn't take place in this country.

I visited Winnipeg during the Easter break to look at some of their lottery activities there, some of their casinos and so forth. I think that Manitoba has the closest thing to legalized gambling in the country. We don't have those kinds of casino operations, which are there to raise funds for non-profit organizations but are very carefully monitored and controlled by the provincial government. I went to a casino one night while I was in Winnipeg meeting with the minister, Eugene Kostyra, and Garth Manness, the general manager of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation, just to see how those casinos are conducted in the province of Manitoba. I found that at this casino there were about 400 or more people playing blackjack and roulette at about ten o'clock at night. This particular casino was to go on for a period of 14 days, and the purpose was to raise funds for private schools in the province of Manitoba. This was about the twelfth day of that particular casino. I asked the supervisor or manager of that particular casino — I was going to call him the pit boss — whether they would reach their objective of $500,000 in 14 playing days. The answer was yes, they would raise $500,000 for private schools.

So I found that Manitoba has the closest thing to legalized gambling casinos of any province in this country. I know the same thing takes place in Alberta, because I've seen the casinos in Alberta. I've attempted to understand just how they're operated by the non-profits there, but closely supervised by the government to ensure they're as honest as a gambling game can possibly be.

I want to say that you can't even.... It's like night and day comparing the kind of regulations we have in British Columbia with those in Manitoba. The maximum bet you can make on a blackjack table in British Columbia is $5. There's virtually no limit in the province of Manitoba. You can bet up to $50 on a blackjack game. So it's virtually limitless. It's almost like Las Vegas as far as bets are concerned. There are a few minimum-$2-bet tables and other tables called minimum-$5, maximum-$50.

So I found the closest thing to legalized casinos in Manitoba. They even have an inducement for people to arrive early. The place opens at 11:00 a.m. and closes at 1:00 a.m. The first 200 people arriving after 11:00 a.m. are given $5 each to play whatever game — roulette or blackjack. In other words, they are giving away $1,000 each and every day to encourage people to come early. That's the place I found where legalized gambling is the closest thing to casinos, with the exception that it is closely monitored and watched by the provincial government.

MR. MacWILLIAM: With respect to the casinos in Manitoba, the minister basically also mentioned the point that the reason for the casinos is for the raising of funds for a particular community purpose. I think that the minister would agree with me that under most jurisdictions certain fundraising purposes are allowed to run these non-profit casinos. I don't think there is really any difference — but you might correct me — throughout Canada.

However, I'm very pleased that the minister has gone on record as saying that this government opposes any further liberalization of gaming laws, in terms of the possibility of legalizing gambling — legalized casinos — in British Columbia. I'm glad that he's made that statement. It relieves concerns that I have addressed, concerns that have been cited in the literature in terms of the accompanying social degradation and crime that seems to accompany such operations, as has been recorded time and time again. I thank the minister for giving a direct response and for going on record stating his position. With that, I think I will close my remarks and allow somebody else some time.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to change the pace entirely and do something that all of us in this House have to do on occasion, which is to talk about constituency issues. I'm going to talk about one that the minister and his deputy and others in the ministry and in other ministries are aware of, and that's the Campbell River Museum.

I guess the argument that I've had with the ministry for some time now that the temporary cancellation, or I guess the moratorium, imposed on the community rec facilities fund program means that those projects can't be alternately funded by lottery rants has created some problems for us in this particular application, inasmuch as I really have some trouble understanding how a specific request for assistance for exhibit construction and furnishing costs has anything to do

[ Page 6605 ]

with the community rec facilities fund. The government's argument has been all along that this particular Lottery Fund application, which was submitted on March 27, 1984....

HON. MR. CHABOT: April.

MR. GABELMANN: It's signed March 27, 1984. It may well have arrived in the offices in April, so in your files it would have been April because that's when it arrived, but the application was dated March 27, 1984.

In any event, we've had this continuing argument, and I guess I just want to quickly sort it out if we can. The lotteries branch is saying no, this particular application is not eligible because it would normally be funded by community rec. The museum society, on July 17, 1984, sent a letter to the minister reconfirming that they have appealed to the Lottery Fund for assistance to develop the major exhibits and to furnish the facility. "We are raising funds elsewhere for the construction." In the minister's reply to that letter — and the minister's letter is undated, but was received on August 10 — the minister says: "Normally, as you are aware, capital assistance grants for construction of new facilities like yours would have been considered by the recreational facilities assistance program. Such funding included fixtures, furnishings and fittings required to complete the facility. For a museum this included exhibits."

There seems to me to have been a failure to completely understand what the application was for. It was not for construction. It was not for the normal kind of assistance that would be up to one-third of capital construction. The application was specifically and clearly worded to suggest that they wanted assistance for construction of furnishings costs.

[10:45]

When I go through other applications that have been approved by the lotteries branch — none have been approved in that amount, I grant, at least not recently — there are any number of projects that appear to be less worthy of consideration than this one under the apparent terms of reference. I cite the art gallery in Penticton. This is the April to September 1984 summary.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the difficulties I've had in this continuing debate, Mr. Chairman, is that whenever I find an example of some grant that's been approved, I'm told: "Well, this was prior to the moratorium on the...."

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

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

Let me just say two things in respect to trying to find a solution to this. One is that I would urge the minister to try to find a solution within the existing guidelines in respect of the Lottery Fund. If that continues to prove impossible, I'd like to get some idea as to when the recreational facilities assistance fund is likely to be reopened. I notice the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) the other day made the same appeal. It's something that's really quite essential, I think, in this province.

Let me just say very quickly what the economic rationale is on this particular project. We're talking about a $2.9 million construction project. Most of the money, in fact well over half the money, is coming from out of province, from federal government sources and from private foundations out of province. The community has in the last few weeks — not more than six weeks now — raised $100,000 in Campbell River from local people like me putting in $300 apiece, and that kind of thing. We raised $100,000 in a very short period of time, and the fund-raising has just really started. I'll be going to a dance on Friday night that's part of that fundraising project. It's something that has the complete and entire support of the community, as I'm sure the minister doesn't need to be told.

What we're talking about here is an ability to generate construction jobs, using non-British Columbia money for the most part; an opportunity to create permanent jobs and to create a tourist-related destination, in fact. This is something that is very big in Japan. They're expressing great interest in this particular project because of the links between the west coast native people and the Japanese native people that have really been developed in recent times between Campbell River and a place called Ishikari. So there are a lot of spinoffs that can come economically and from a whole variety of points of view.

But the hangup, the single hangup, in this whole project is that federal money which is being committed is hinged on provincial contributions. The federal government says that unless the provincial government shows some financial support for this project, we can't free up the federal money. Here we are.... The application was for $400,000. I'm sure that numbers are negotiable, and I'm not arguing for the $400,000; I'm arguing for financial contribution of some kind so that the federal money can kick in, and so that the thing can get underway. It's the most frustrating local issue that I've been involved in in my time as the member for North Island, and I'd appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I think I'll probably comment on the Penticton Art Gallery. It's similar to the games. When we hold the Summer and Winter Games, we leave a legacy behind for a specific purpose. In Penticton, after the Festival of the Arts, we left a legacy of $70,000 for the arts, and we'll be doing the same thing in Prince George when the Festival of the Arts is held next year. In Nanaimo this summer we'll be leaving a legacy for sports. So first of all we left the $70,000 legacy in Penticton, but I topped it up and gave an additional $30,000 over and above the $70,000 from lotteries.

The reason for that, really, is the fact that the federal government again was involved. They were prepared to make a contribution to the art gallery in Penticton, contingent upon the Penticton Art Gallery being able to get a contribution of $100,000 from the provincial government. So that's why I topped it up. I gave an additional $30,000, kind of a hopefully non-precedent-setting kind of situation so that they could attract those federal funds. So that's where you see the $30,000 for the art gallery in Penticton.

Of course, Campbell River faces the same situation with federal funds. It's contingent upon the province. I don't like that kind of approach on the part of the national government, but nevertheless that's the way they do it. They want to see

[ Page 6606 ]

some interest on the part of the province for particular projects. The only point you haven't clarified for me on their application, which is a well-documented and well-supported application for Campbell River.... Is there an expiry date on the federal contribution — I think that's very important — or is that an open commitment from the federal government? Maybe you'd want to clarify that. We think that that particular proposal is a first-class one. It would be high on our list of projects to be funded once the moratorium has been removed. I expect the moratorium will be removed fairly soon — within a matter of weeks.

The other issue, of course, is the amount. I think there was some concern in the ministry about the $400,000 amount. I'm glad to hear the member say that it is negotiable; I don't know if he's prepared to give me another number.

But that's the situation. Once the moratorium.... Of course, RFAP projects are not funded. What happens is that as the lottery funds build up, we find an opportunity to make contributions to various facilities — museums, art galleries and recreational facilities — throughout the province. As I indicated, this project is one which is high on our list.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm pleased to hear the indication that in a few weeks or so the program will be reinstituted. If I remember correctly, under that program the maximum grant was originally one-third of a million. If the minister is looking for a new figure, that would be the one that I would be prepared to throw out.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: We've quickly dropped $67,000. But seriously, I think that if that program were to be started again and the original rules were to apply — which is capital up to a maximum of one-third of a million — then I think that's the kind of thing we'd be talking about, in reasonable terms.

As far as the federal money goes, and whether there is a time limit on it, my understanding was that it was available in the last fiscal year — the one that expired March 31. The money had been set aside awaiting a provincial decision. The change of government left some confusion as to whether or not it would continue to be available. My understanding as of a few weeks ago was that the money was still available, but wouldn't be for long. From the federal government's point of view, that's reasonable. They're not going to hold this money in abeyance forever, awaiting decisions elsewhere. So I understand that money is still available. I know the private money is still available.

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

MR. GABELMANN: In rough terms, the $2.9 million was to be made up of about $400,000 from the province, about $400,000 from the community, and $2.1 million was to come from national sources. One million of this was private, which was committed by a national organization, and $1.1 million was to come from two different federal funding agencies. Those numbers are off the top of my head, but I believe them to be, if not accurate, then pretty close to accurate and certainly in the ballpark. So we're talking about a little over one-third of the money from federal agencies, about one-third from a national private organization, and a little less than one-third jointly from the community and the province. As it turns out, if we go to the recreational grant approach, the community will have raised more money than we get from the province. But I believe the community has demonstrated an ability to raise that kind of money.

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right, and I want an up-to-date report on what has been going on, not just in his ministry but in all of the public service, on the status of women. I've been doing this every year since 1972, so I'm hoping that the minister anticipated my intervention, and that he has shown up on the floor today with a full report. I want the up-to-date statistics on where women are in the public sector. I want to be told that they are no longer locked into clerical ghettos at the bottom, that they have in fact been taking advantage of the program which he told us about in February of this year, Taking Charge of Your Career. I'd like to have some up-to date statistics on that.

I'm also wondering whether, in response to the Abella report on employment equity, the provincial government is taking any parallel steps with the federal government, in terms of really trying to get women's incomes up in Crown corporations as well as in the public service itself.

In addition, I'm wondering whether the minister would consider updating the very good report which was done in 1979 for the equal employment opportunities committee of the Public Service Commission. The last report we have on that was 1979. Is there going to be one for 1985 or 1986? This is an excellent report; and the minister should get in the habit of updating it. It should become a habit.

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

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

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister seems eager and anxious of give me an up-to-date report on where women are in the public sector. I'm hoping that there are up-to-date statistics, and also maybe even a copy of the printout, which I know he has, so that I could be better informed and better able to ask better questions with each passing year, and able to better appreciate the work that he is doing in terms of employment equity for women in the public service.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'll just give you some of the information I have here on women in British Columbia's public service. In this ministry the number of women in middle and senior management positions has increased from

[ Page 6607 ]

two in 1979 to 14 in 1984, a 600 percent increase. Women hold 15.9 percent of the middle and senior management positions in the ministry, compared to 5.5 percent in 1979. Compared to 1981, just a little less than four years ago, when there were no women earning over $35,000 in the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services, there are now 24. For government as a whole there are now 152 women in middle and senior management, compared to 75 in 1979, which is a hundred percent increase. Women hold 9.9 percent of the management positions in the B.C. public service; this compares favourably to the 5.9 percent female managers in the federal public service that was quoted from the Abella report during debate of Bill 35.

While there is still a gap between the female average salary and the male average salary, it is narrower than the gap in Manitoba, which was quoted during the debate, again, on Bill 35. The Manitoba figure was used to support a call for an affirmative action plan protected by statute. In Manitoba in 1984 the female average salary for a provincial sector worker was 73 percent of her male counterpart's; in the B.C. public service it was 79 percent.

In addition to increased numbers of women in middle and senior management, the wage gap between male and female managers is also narrowing. The female manager's average salary is now 88 percent of her male counterpart's: it was 86 percent in 1979.

[11:00]

On the report that you raised, I just want to confirm that my deputy and the deputy minister for women's affairs — I guess now it's not women's affairs — in the Ministry of Labour, Isabel Kelly.... They've had discussions about the updating of that particular report, the 1979 report. They're in the process of taking affirmative action to update those figures.

MS. BROWN: The only question the minister hasn't answered is the one dealing with extending these actions to cover Crown corporations, because they're also very important. If you'll notice in the federal plan that they have for dealing with employment equity — which is the term that we now use, Mr. Chairman; we don't use "affirmative action" anymore, even though it means the same thing.... Employment equity" is the new term, not "affirmative action."

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

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

What about the Crown corporations, as is the plan in the federal government, and also the Taking Charge of Your Career program? What's happening to that — the one which you talked about in February?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm informed that next Tuesday we'll be holding a seminar to deal with the issue of employment equity, and that all the directors in my ministry will be participating in this employment equity seminar, along with knowledgeable people or professional people in the private sector, and from the federal government as well.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Maybe the minister will give me the address and time of the seminar, because I'm sure it is open to the public. If I'm in the neighbourhood, I wouldn't mind....

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

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

I was just wondering if the minister then would share with me the information which comes out of the seminar in terms of any resolutions or any plans for implementation.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Actually what is taking place next Tuesday in the seminars is kind of a staff meeting of directors and so forth. I'd be glad to make the results of that seminar available to you.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, good morning once again to the hon. Provincial Secretary. I believe the Provincial Secretary was going to return with some information respecting the proportions of the Lottery Fund that are used specifically for the arts.

When the Provincial Secretary deals with that question, could he as well give the gross revenues that the Lottery Fund generated in 1984-85? I don't suppose you have those figures up to date, but I would like to know the gross amount of money that was generated through the sale of lottery tickets for fiscal year 1984-85, the portion used for administration, the portion that was paid out for prizes and the amount that was remaining for grants — gross, prizes, grants.

I've looked at the figures in the estimates for the year. Let's see if I can locate those. My memory isn't too good, but was it around $60 million that you estimated? I have to look it up. Do you remember the estimate? I guess I was thinking it was a lot higher than that. That's the concern I have, because you were anticipating something like $8 million, or in that neighbourhood, for grants in 1985-86.

The other question is with respect to the status of the Cultural Fund. That's a $20 million fund that the government has had for a number of years. It yields approximately $1.5 million for grants.

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

MR. BARNES: Yes. I guess what I am trying to see is the total amount of moneys that are available from the two sources, one through lotteries and the other through the special funds. To what extent are the funds made available through the consolidated revenue directly from taxes?

It takes a little bit of research in order to make the case that I wanted to. How has the government been funding the arts over the past few years? I haven't got the figures before me. One of the problems is that we're never quite sure just how much is being funded through lotteries. That's difficult

[ Page 6608 ]

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

In the meantime, could I just reflect a little bit on some of the other questions that were raised the other day before I get into the final subject of multiculturalism and government policy with respect to that? I'd like to just wind up a few matters dealing with the arts.

I have before me quite a large number of letters. Most of these are addressed to the Minister of Education, dealing with elective programs in the public school system that were cut as a result of restraint being imposed on the various school districts. I won't read all of these into the record. Most of these are from my constituency, but I'm sure every MLA received them from their own constituencies. It's quite a remarkable thing.

We were talking the other day about the youth participating in the political process and exercising their democratic rights. I should say, and I'm sure the minister will certainly acknowledge it as well, that we've seen considerable participation by young people this past year. They have felt directly affected by the political decisions of their senior government. Probably the one thing that has stimulated them to action has been the loss of certain basic programs that were provided because of the latitude available to the various school districts — such programs as the sport programs, after-school programs, drama programs and various electives that normally wouldn't be available unless the scope was allowed to the school districts. When the Minister of Education brought strict guidelines down in terms of what the budgets had to cover, the first things that seemed to be cut were the programs to deal with fine arts, sports programs and various cultural activities. The consequences were such that many of these young people began to write letters to their MLAs, Members of Parliament, city councils and to anyone who would listen. Of course, they were demonstrating, holding public meetings, etc. I think we are familiar with that scenario.

I would like the minister to clarify for us what the government's position is with respect to restoring these essential programs. I think the case is being made time and time again by educators, who really are dumbfounded and at a loss for strategies to try to demonstrate the severity of what is happening as a result of the cutbacks in the special programs.

One problem, obviously, is that while the business of education may come under one ministry, millions of programs that take place in the public school facilities are the responsibility of other ministries. Of course, Provincial Secretary is one and Health is another. There is a need for a kind of interministerial policy with respect to continuity of essential services and programs.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member has asked a lot of questions regarding cultural grants. I want to say that the administration of the cultural branch in my ministry has a cost of about $550,000, and then we do give grants to the various cultural groups throughout British Columbia. Some $1.5 million of that funding comes from the special purpose fund, and then we give from lotteries over and above, which would include the cultural heritage advisory. We give about $5.5 million, for a total of $7 million, to cultural activities in the province

The member wanted to know what the situation was regarding the funding of the cultural groups in recent years. Because of restraint and the turndown in the economy, it's been a status quo situation. We've maintained the funding. We have not cut back any of the funding to the cultural groups in the province. We have increased the funding this year by an amount of $100,000 on the grant side for cultural groups in British Columbia, as well as the Expo-related touring in B.C., which is another $200,000 over and above what we've given heretofore.

[11:15]

So I think that probably covers the figures, with the exception of.... I think the member was asking what our gross revenue is on lotteries in British Columbia. The gross revenue would be in the vicinity of $250 million.

MR. BARNES: Gross is $250 million. What portion is administration? What portion goes for prizes? What amount would be left for grants to be distributed to those various applicants?

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

MR. BARNES: Under B.C. Lottery perhaps you could clarify this. Not being an accountant and understanding the details that are not elaborated on very much, this is something that I find.... The government has voted or will be voting expenditures of $10, which basically means it's just a formality for the lotteries. So the figure you just gave doesn't reflect anyplace in your ministry under your ministry's operations. At least as far as I can see, I can't find that figure you gave anywhere.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The estimates show $69,340,000 available for disbursements to various worthwhile and necessary causes throughout the province. The figure does not show the gross. I might be high when I say $250 million as potential revenue, but it's in that vicinity, I'd have to say.

The other detailed information that you're seeking would probably be contained within the annual report of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation. Of course, we're no longer participants in the Western Canada Lottery Foundation. As chairman of the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, I want to say that once we've had our first fiscal year come to a conclusion, we will be putting together an annual report. And at that time all the intricate details which you're seeking will probably be available.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just advise the minister and the member that we do have a bill before the House, and we may be anticipating legislation in this debate. That remark is specifically for the minister, not for you, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I just want to thank my colleague for allowing me to get in just one thing ahead of him, Mr. Chairman, because I won't be here this afternoon, and he will be here.

Interjection.

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

[ Page 6609 ]

The B.C. Government Employees' Union asked the Provincial Secretary for permission to check off from their dues some funds which they wanted to contribute to the unemployment action centres and the food banks. The Provincial Secretary refused them permission to do that. I guess the Provincial Secretary wasn't aware of the real crisis that we have in this province in terms of people going hungry and depending on the food banks and on the employment action centres.

However, the Provincial Secretary has permitted a check-off for the purchasing of Expo 86 passes, and I'm kind of wondering whether, now that a precedent has set and the Provincial Secretary has indicated that it's okay to pay for your passes off your payroll deduction — for a deduction to be made to cover the cost of your Expo 86 pass — if he would be willing to reconsider his position in terms of those government employees who would like to contribute to the unemployment action centres and to the food banks in British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the member regarding the unemployment action centres, first of all the B.C. Federation of Labour asked the B.C. unions to take up the funding because the federal government stopped the funding at the end of 1984, and most unions did make a commitment. The BCGEU undertook to raise $10 per head, for a total of about $350,000. They asked us several months ago to accept a payroll deduction from the employees, and they were told at that time that there was no field available on the computer as the last one was used by Expo. They attempted to have us include this deduction in the slot designated for charitable contributions. They further informed us that the unemployment action centres are not incorporated as charitable societies. Further, the charitable deduction field is not available. It is currently overused. There are ten slots, 15 items. T-4s reflect charitable deductions, and a non-charity would have to be manually removed for tax purposes, at considerable expense.

So based on that, and on our inability to handle this kind of a request because of the computer being fully occupied, we've had no alternative but to turn them down. We've suggested alternative ways for them to raise funds.

MS. BROWN: One of the things you can do when you have a number of ministries on computers is use each other's computer time and computer space, and that kind of thing. You can make a deal with Health. They have the most sophisticated, up-to-date and outstanding computer system I have ever seen. I went to Sweden just to talk about the computer system in Health. I'm very impressed with it. I am quite convinced that they would be willing to cooperate with the Provincial Secretary if your computer is old-fashioned and out-of-date and not state-of-the-art, as Health is. Maybe even Human Resources.

But if there is on your part a real sense of the urgency and the need which these food banks have, and the unemployment action centres, something can be worked out, despite the fact that they do not have charitable status, so that those employees in your service who want it checked off their payroll at source to help these two resources, which just sprang up in our community.... They weren't put in place by government or anything. They just sprang up as a direct result of the hunger in the community, and the unemployment situation and poverty situation.

I think the minister can do it if he really sets his mind to it. You're smart enough. I think you're clever enough. I also think you have access to other resources in the government so that you would be able to make this happen. So would you, if you can't deal with it specifically through your own ministry, give a commitment that you will look at other alternatives, explore other alternatives, so that those people employed by the public service commission who want to make donations directly out of their paycheques at source will be able to do so, because the food banks and the unemployment action centres are in a crisis situation in the province at this time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a brief response, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the computer I made the reference about is not a computer that belongs in the Provincial Secretary ministry or Government Services. It's the Ministry of Finance computer that puts the payroll out. We're informed by the Minister of Finance that they are unable to accommodate this particular request, and because of that situation I guess the only alternative.... We've been told in no uncertain terms that there is no ability to handle it on the computer, so under the circumstances I think the union should make a plea to its members to make a voluntary contribution to help out the food banks.

MR. COCKE: Just one word, Mr. Chairman. Providing the food banks become registered societies with tax relief, could the minister include them or those donations under the proper category? I'm asking that question because my understanding is that the feds are going to give them that status very shortly. The question is: if in fact they are tax-deductible, would you provide the column that is allocated for that purpose?

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, it's not my jurisdiction. I understand there is an independent committee of bureaucrats that looks at these kinds of issues, and they make the determination. But it's not in my ministry.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we were given the impression that that minister actually has some jurisdiction. Now we find that he has no jurisdiction. He's the minister in charge of government employees in this province, and he can't even make a decision as minute and minuscule as this. What are we doing even discussing his estimates?

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

MR. BARNES: Well, I would love to get in on the debate about the food banks, but I'll save that for another time. I just want to get back now to another subject, dealing with your responsibility, multicultural programs.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I just want to say that in recent months there has been a change of responsibilities in cabinet. I used to be the chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage. I'm no longer there, having been given responsibility for B.C. Place. I believe the boss

[ Page 6610 ]

felt that maybe there should be some lessening of the burden on the shoulders of the poor Provincial Secretary. He then made the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) chairman of that particular committee. While I continue to serve as a member, I think the responsibility rests more directly with the Minister of Human Resources, rather than the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair had trouble following the point of order, which appeared to be nothing more than a statement. Perhaps the....

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, yes, but I note in the estimates, Hon. Minister — and I don't want to enter into debate myself — that we have the British Columbia Cultural Fund among your special statutory funds.

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

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

[11:30]

MR. BARNES: Well, I find that really about the most interesting revelation I've heard in a long time on the part of that member, who is suggesting that he's not the minister responsible for something which is in his estimates. That is incredible. But leaving it up to that member, he always has a way of dealing with these matters. So rather than talk about multiculturalism, let's talk about one culture at a time. [Laughter.] I tell you, this is really a very humorous session. I'm enjoying this, you know. The minister is no longer the chairman of the committee, but he is still a member of the committee, I presume, in some capacity or other.

MR. COCKE: He doles out the bucks.

MR. BARNES: He knows that.

I would like to refer the minister to a study that was completed by the immigrant services society — that is, the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies of British Columbia. They did a paper in January 1985 — very recent. I don't know if you have that, but it makes reference to a matter that I would like to just share with the House and the minister for a little background. This particular quote starts on page 9. It says:

"Turning next to the involvement of the B.C. government in the area of multiculturalism, the first major initiative occurred in April of 1979, when the B.C. government and the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies of B.C. sponsored a conference entitled 'Toward A Provincial Multicultural Policy.' Premier Bennett identified the objective as: '...identifying policy goals and program activities the provincial government might consider in the multicultural field...we wish to hear from the various multicultural communities in the province as we develop our policy in this important subject area."'

"Eleven recommendations and resolutions were generated from the conference. In June 1981, the B.C. government appointed an advisory committee on cultural heritage headed by Judge Norman Oreck to analyze these recommendations. The committee travelled the province and in March 1982 submitted a lengthy report including its own recommendations and ways and means for implementation. Few of these recommendations have been acted upon and B.C. still has no formal multicultural policy.

"Rather than establishing a ministry of multiculturalism as at the federal level, the B.C. government set up the cultural heritage program in 1980. This structure created the position of 'cultural heritage adviser,' whose task is to maintain contact with the ethnocultural groups in the province and inform the government of their concerns. The adviser is beyond the official ranks of government and has limited authority. He is responsible to the Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage made up of four cabinet ministers" — including the Provincial Secretary. "Meetings between the adviser and the committee are arranged infrequently when needs and concerns of the multicultural communities are voiced."

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

"In 1982-83, Public Accounts showed that $171,895 was spent by the cultural heritage adviser in operating his office. The sum which was allocated by the Ministry of Provincial Secretary to the office of the cultural heritage adviser for 1983-84 was $225,000 and for 1984-85, also $225,000. The cultural heritage adviser has the authority to give small grants to ethnic communities. In 1984 these grants amounted to about $75,000."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Remember the $75,000.

In addition, he was allowed to publish a monthly called Link, a bulletin on ethnocultural community events, as well as an irregular publication entitled Living Heritage. "The provincial government did have a program entitled the refugee settlement program, under which voluntary organizations providing settlement services for immigrants and refugees could receive funds. This program was ended in September 1983 under the provincial restraint program. Its budget for 1981-82 had been $381,853 and for 1982-83, $416,450." Clearly that's not very much money, Mr. Chairman; $75,000 seems to be the only amount of money that was spent during this reporting year that was available to the heritage adviser to the minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order. I don't mind the member.... I don't know what his point is going to be — if he's going to read from lengthy reports, or whether it's a deliberate attempt to delay or what — but I just want to clarify one point: the cultural heritage adviser comes under the auspices of the Minister of Human Resources, not the Provincial Secretary.

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

[ Page 6611 ]

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point of order, the member suggested that the cultural heritage adviser is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. He's making constant reference to the cultural heritage adviser. I want to say that the cultural heritage adviser answers to the Minister of Human Resources and not to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would appear to be a reasonable point of order in that it's not within the sphere of the minister's estimates. The Chair was having some difficulty in that we are debating the estimates of 1985-86. The Chair was allowing certain leeway, anticipating a comparison that has not come to the floor.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I notice in the estimates under the Provincial Secretary an amount of $553,531 for the cultural services of this province. Maybe the book that we were supplied with by the Minister of Finance is in error. There is a great deal more, Mr. Chairman, and they are listed, if you will: "Cultural, recreation and historical resources: Provincial Museum, Provincial Archives, heritage conservation...." etc. We're talking in terms of $4.6 million, $1.5 million. Heritage conservation is $1.6 million, and cultural services is $555,000. What is happening? Cultural services has always been financed by the Provincial Secretary, and it would appear by these massive figures that he still has a mighty hand in that particular disposition. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I feel that my colleague is certainly within his bounds talking in terms of culture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Debate on matters set out within the minister's estimates under the votes would certainly be in order. However, I think the House should be in a position to accept the minister's statement that a specific item, which may have a similar nomenclature as in the estimates but is not identical and is not within his mandate, would then, accordingly, not be in order under the debate of the minister's estimates.

MR. BARNES: I can say that in the nearly 13 years that I've been in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I've heard of a minister, with such overwhelming evidence printed up by the government as a statement of his proposed expenditures, say that he has no responsibility for them. This is absolutely shocking! But I'm not surprised. As I say, the minister — the Provincial Secretary — is very adept at the game of politics, and he will use any tactic he can to throw the opposition off — any tactic he can, even a direct frontal attack such as this against a member who is attempting to represent scores and scores of people in this community of various ethnic backgrounds.

Mr. Chairman, this minister says he has no responsibility. He suggests that the Minister of Human Resources has responsibility. Let's take a look at the Minister of Human Resources' estimates and see if we can see anything under there about multiculturalism. I won't bother to look, but I'm sure that if we look we'll find that that minister as well probably is assuming no responsibility for what's under her estimates. She certainly isn't assuming any responsibility for those very low rates on social assistance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on vote 60, the estimates of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, not the Ministry of Human Resources.

MR. BARNES: In the province of British Columbia, there are a very large number of different cultures and races of people. A survey was taken in 1981, and it was population by selected ethnic origin. In other words, those people who were surveyed were given the opportunity of expressing where they felt their main ethnic background should be. Just listen to the list. In the province of British Columbia, 3,445 people felt they were of African background, and 2,570 of those were in the city of Vancouver; 840 Armenians in British Columbia, 795 in Vancouver; people of Asian-Arab.... You know, we don't know very much about our culture. If you look at this list, you would be amazed at how complex multiculturalism is in British Columbia. Just consider the kinds of needs that are necessary.

[11:45]

I'm just going to run down the list real quick. There are 2,970 people of Asian-Arab ancestry in British Columbia, 2,305 of them in the city of Vancouver. Australian: 9,030 in B.C., 4,620 in Vancouver; Balkan: 15,910 in B.C., 9,625 in Vancouver; Baltic: 4,585 in B.C., 2,760 in Vancouver; Belgium-Luxembourg: 3,830 in B.C., 1,444 in Vancouver; British: 1,385,170 in B.C., 612,140 in Vancouver; Chinese: 96,910 in B.C., 83,845 in Vancouver; Czech-Slovak: 10,407 in B.C., 5,350 in Vancouver; Dutch: 72,280 in B.C., 28,220 in Vancouver; Finnish: 10,805 in B.C., 5,735 in Vancouver; French: 92,305 in B.C., 36,815 in Vancouver; German: 187,625 in B.C., 73,935 in Vancouver; Greek: 8,390 in B.C., 6,215 in Vancouver.

I didn't know that people of Hungarian descent were called Magyar, but there you go. You learn. Maybe I'm helping a few of you in here as well. There are 15,920 people of Hungarian descent in the province, with 8,070 in Vancouver; Indo-Chinese: 4,410 in B.C., 2,250 in Vancouver; Indo-Pakistani: 52,720 in B.C., 30,685 in Vancouver.

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm so interested in these numbers that I feel it would be important for us to hear more. I therefore provide this member with an opportunity, as an intervening speaker.

MR. BARNES: Shall I start over? Japanese: 16,040 in the province, 11,715 in the city; Jewish: 13,170 in the province, 11,425 in the city; North and South Americans — I'm not quite sure what that means: 4,525, 3,025 in the city of Vancouver. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that these are the perceptions that people have of their own ethnic origin, so people have a right to a perception, I suppose, of where they think they come from or how they feel about their ethnic background. Native peoples: 64,690 in the province, 10,850 in the city of Vancouver; the Pacific islands: 23,795 in the

[ Page 6612 ]

province, 11,500 in the city; Polish: 23,795 in the province, 11,500 in the city; Portuguese: 16,120 in the province, 7,965 in the city; Romanian: 2,650 in the province, 1,260 in the city of Vancouver; Russian: 19,610 in the province, 5,195 in the city.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Was that Prussian or Russian?

MR. BARNES: No, I didn't see any Prussians on this one.

Scandinavian: 85,040 in the province, 35,850 in the city; Spanish: 4,845 in the province, 3,340 in the city; Swiss: 6,335 in the province, 2,660 in the city of Vancouver; Ukrainian: 63,605 in the province, 29,280 in the city of Vancouver; West Asian: 1,765 in the province, 1,425 in the city of Vancouver. Get this, Mr. Provincial Secretary — British and French: 42,955 in the province, 18,530 in the city of Vancouver; British and other: 171,195 in the province of British Columbia and 74,780 in the city of Vancouver; French and other....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't mix us up.

MR. BARNES: The people are just not sure. There are 15,285 in British Columbia, and 6,290 in the city of Vancouver; British, French and other: 17,475 in the province, 7,175 in the city of Vancouver; European and other: 41,705 in the province, 18,895 in the city of Vancouver; native people and other: 17,950 in the province, 5,340 in the city of Vancouver. Then other single and/or multiple origins: 33,925, and 16,810.

Obviously, when you listen to a list like that, and you have a group such as the affiliation of multicultural societies attempting to provide services.... Many of these people do not speak English as their main tongue; they perhaps speak all these different languages. In fact, it is estimated that out of the nearly 450,000 students in British Columbia, about 40 percent of those do not speak English as a first language.

I'm just suggesting to the Provincial Secretary that this is a complex matter. It involves some commitment of government funding, some recognition of a need for these people to understand their citizenship, understand the services that are available to them so that they can participate. This is why I am wondering if the government has taken seriously its promise in 1979, just before the election, that when it held that special conference to discuss those needs of all those people, you were kidding. As of today you still don't have a policy on multiculturalism. It's a very serious matter.

I would now like to get to the heritage adviser, who is responsible to this minister or to the committee, because $75,000 is hardly enough money to seriously address the concerns of this vast community of people in need.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55.