[ Page 6613 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

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

An Act To Establish An Institute Of Native Indian Languages For British Columbia (Bill M216), Mr. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 6613

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

Introduction and first reading –– 6613

Oral Questions

Public Accounts committee meeting. Mr. Cocke –– 6614

Mr. Reynolds

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

Annual report of ombudsman. Mr. Williams –– 6615

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

Tabling Documents –– 6616

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

On vote 60: minister's office –– 6616

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Cocke

Division

Lottery Corporation Act (Bill 43). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6628

Mr. Hanson –– 6628

Mrs. Wallace –– 6629

Mr. Barnes –– 6629

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6630

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

On vote 57: minister's office –– 6631

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Blencoe

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the members' gallery today is a former member of this assembly. I remember well how this hall used to echo with his scintillating debate during the time he was here. I'd like to introduce to the House the former member for Burnaby-Edmonds, Mr. Ray Loewen, MLA, retired.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On Monday evening, after working in the buildings, one of our Sergeant at Arms staff suffered a heart attack; due to some very fortunate circumstances, he is okay and is in the Jubilee Hospital. Harry Talbot came to work in the Legislature in March 1979. He has been an attendant in the chamber for the last two years –– I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that appropriate greetings be sent, on behalf of all of us, from your office to acknowledge the service that he has rendered to this House.

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

MR. ROSE: This afternoon in the gallery is Dr. Hal Weinberg, who is a director of electoral area B, which includes ioco and Anmore in my riding of Coquitlam-Moody. He's here to meet later on this afternoon with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this afternoon I take pleasure in introducing John Beenken from the sunny city of White Rock.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming a dear friend of mine from Terrace, president of our federal constituency association in that area and a representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Mr. Jim Lamb.

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

MR. MICHAEL: We have some guests in the gallery today from the British Columbia Funeral Service Association: John Chasca, president, from Vernon; Neil Allert, vice-president, from Abbotsford; Jonathan Beenken, executive director, White Rock; John Clark, past-president, from Trail; Ray Loewen from Burnaby; and George Wright from Kamloops. Would the House please make them welcome.

MISUSE OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

HON. MR. CURTIS: I rise to make a ministerial statement. It appears that yesterday, June 12, government communications facilities in the northern part of the province were used to transmit by facsimile, and/or other electronic systems, at least one item containing very offensive — I might say highly offensive — racist slurs. The material may have been sent to more than one individual in more than one government office. The individual who is apparently responsible is an employee of the Ministry of Finance. I wanted to assure hon. members at the earliest possible moment, bearing in mind that this occurred yesterday, that one recipient of the material lost no time in notifying his or her superiors. As of noon today the individual who appears to have originated transmission of the material has been suspended without pay pending a full investigation.

MR. HOWARD: I think we are indebted to the Minister of Finance and the government for moving quickly in dealing with such matters, because any attempt by any citizen to cast slurs and aspersions against anybody because of their inheritance or their racial background is an intolerable intrusion into private rights and private privileges of people in this province.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE
OF NATIVE INDIAN LANGUAGES
FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Hanson presented a bill intituled An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages for British Columbia.

MR. HANSON: In speaking to this bill, I would like to point out to the House that this is the fourth occasion that this bill has been introduced now. It addresses a problem that is faced by the Indian people of this province. Almost half of the native languages of Canada are located within the boundaries of British Columbia, and as all members are aware, these people have occupied British Columbia for approximately 10,000 years. The situation today, Mr. Speaker, is that because these were unwritten languages and transmitted culturally through oral traditions, it is imperative that various kinds of grammatical and other studies be done before the speakership that is knowledgeable about these languages passes away. I would like to point out to the House that since the first introduction of this bill four years ago, I am advised by linguists that in many regions of the province one-half of the speakers who were present and knowledgeable of the languages four years ago are now deceased. So there is urgency to implement such an institute, which would do a number of things. It would: develop classroom-oriented studies of native languages which would develop, based on those studies, literacy materials including written alphabets, programmed language lessons, dictionaries and bodies of texts for readings; develop and disseminate British Columbia native literature written in native languages; and assist in the training of British Columbia native language speakers to work as teachers and aides in bilingual classrooms.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of this bill to meet a very important need that is, I'm sure, recognized by all members of this House.

Bill M216 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT RESPECTING SELF
SERVICE GASOLINE OUTLETS

Ms. Sanford presented a bill intituled An Act Respecting Self Service Gasoline Outlets.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this bill requires that any self service gasoline outlet in the province be required to provide also a full service gas pump. I'm sure that once I

[ Page 6614 ]

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

Mr. Speaker, I've received a number of complaints from constituents who object to self service gasoline stations. Older people find it difficult to handle the gasoline pumps. A number of people wish to have the oil checked on a regular basis by somebody else; they want to have the transmission fluid levels monitored; they want the battery checked; they want the fan belt examined. There is no doubt that since the proliferation of the self serve stations the level of maintenance of vehicles in the province has dropped significantly.

Mr. Speaker, people who wish to find full service stations are finding it increasingly difficult, because they find they have to drive farther and farther now in order to find a station that does provide some full service for them.

The other point, and this is a very important one, Mr. Speaker, is that passage of this bill would ensure that more jobs would be created in this province. More jobs would be created very quickly in this province with the passage of this bill, and they would be created throughout the province. Traditionally it has been young people who work at the gas pumps, and it's often the first job experience that they ever have. Traditionally it has also been the case that the highest level of unemployment is among young people. For that reason alone the government should accept this bill, and I hope they do. Thank you.

Bill M217 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE MEETING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Chairman, at great expense to the government, the auditor-general visited the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, and I would just like to ask the Chairman if that committee had been properly arrived at and agreed upon by the representative of the Socred caucus?

MR. BLENCOE: I'll do my utmost to answer the question, Mr. Speaker. I might inform the House that indeed the time and place of that meeting was arranged by discussions and meeting between the Secretary and myself and was posted three days prior to the sitting of that meeting yesterday.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of the Public Accounts Committee if in fact this statement by the Chairman is true.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, could I ask the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to restate his question in terms that would be a little more parliamentary?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of the Public Accounts Committee if in fact he was advised by members of that committee that they could not make the meeting at 12 noon and whether it was suggested that a later time in the afternoon would be more convenient to all members, and if he discussed that with the Chairman of the committee.

MR. VEITCH: Yes, certainly I discussed the matter with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and suggested that there probably wouldn't be a quorum, in that many of the members would not be here.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is somewhat irregular for the secretary of a committee to be asked a question. The Chair should not in that case have permitted the question. I apologize to the members for so doing.

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

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

MR. REYNOLDS: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. In view of the fact that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee can't seem to get a quorum together for the committee, and can't seem to arrange matters properly, is he prepared to resign as Chairman of the committee?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe, and our caucus believes, that this committee is the most important committee of this House. The people's accountability must be done, and if this committee is not allowed to meet and is frustrated by this government not turning up for its meetings, then the people's business is not done properly in the province of British Columbia, No, I won't resign. I insist that this committee do its job properly.

MR. REYNOLDS: Another question for the Chairman of the committee. My party also considers the Public Accounts Committee the most important committee in the Legislature. In view of the fact that there were members of the Public Accounts Committee who were on another committee at the same time, would the Chairman make sure that he doesn't have the next meeting at the same time as another committee meeting that members of our Public Accounts Committee are attending, so that we can all attend the meeting, as we wish to do?

MR. BLENCOE: I would suggest that the reason this committee and the government is having trouble attending these meetings is that the committee, from the government side, is made up of cabinet ministers who cannot get to those meetings. In every other public jurisdiction, just about, cabinet ministers do not sit on Public Accounts. That's the reason we have problems, Mr. Speaker, and they should not be on this committee at all. We will meet if the government will agree to the time...

MR. NICOLSON: When they are ready to work.

MR. BLENCOE: ...when they're ready to work, indeed, and we will get this very important committee operating in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 6615 ]

SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE
SELECTION OF AN OMBUDSMAN

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. Why is the member delaying calling the special committee with respect to the selection of the ombudsman?

MR. PARKS: I was waiting to meet to liaise with the liaise-person the opposition asked me to liaise with, and she not being in the House, I have had some difficulty liaising with her. But we do have a date for a meeting, and as soon as she advises me that the members of her party will be able to attend the meeting, it will be formally announced.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party who are on the ombudsman's committee will meet any damned time the Chairman gets off his backside and calls the meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair, from time to time, notices that members, in the spirit of debate, use language that could better be characterized as non-parliamentary. I would ask that the member in question would regard this as a theatre of parliamentary language and not one to the contrary.

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

Is the member aware that the only time that this committee met was over two weeks ago, on May 28, for organizational purposes? No effort whatever was expended by him to call meetings since that time.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I'm surely aware of the last time that our committee met, but I thank the member for refreshing my memory. In fact, contrary to his knowledge, obviously, we have attempted to arrange a meeting with the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). But we have a time and place in mind, and with the acknowledgement of the opposition House Leader, we will now set that time and place, and I'm sure all members from the opposition will attend.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't think, Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was on the committee from our party. I'm sure if the chairman of the committee would get his facts straight we might be able to get some action around here.

I ask the Chairman another question: is he aware that the ombudsman's term of office expires at the end of this month, and does he consider that there is some obligation devolving upon the committee to make a decision with respect to the provisions of the Ombudsman Act about the reappointment of the ombudsman before the end of this month?

MR. PARKS: First, I must apologize. The member on the committee is the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). That is the individual I have been liaising with, not the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Yes, I am sure that all members of the committee, not only myself, are quite familiar with the time restraints dealing with the ombudsman, and we will be dealing with them.

ANNUAL REPORT OF OMBUDSMAN

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Minister of Human Resources. In the annual report of the ombudsman deposited with the House, the ombudsman points out that the ministry's ever more restrictive policies, which seek to stem the tide of demands by making it administratively more difficult to become or remain eligible for income assistance, are part of the reason that complaints to the ombudsman's office increased by some 60-odd percent in the year before this and some 39 percent in the current year. The minister has said that it is her concern that people who are in need get the help. In view of that concern on the part of the minister, can she assure the House that she will meet with the ombudsman to discuss these matters of substance?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my ministry is constantly in touch with the ombudsman's office, and he with them. They have had a very good working relationship over these past few years.

MR. WILLIAMS: On that basis then, and noting that in fact the caseload has doubled in terms of people asking for welfare and that the staff has been cut by 25 percent, in view of the real problems within the ministry, is the minister prepared to withdraw the term that she used earlier with respect to the ombudsman's statements, which she claimed were hogwash?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no. I am not prepared to withdraw in this regard. The Ministry of Human Resources does respond to everyone in this province who comes to them in time of need, and they respond in both a financial and a very good service way. In this province we will be spending almost $1 billion on income assistance, and that's a very real response to the people who come to us in time of need. The accusation that there would be bureaucratic delays or anything put in the way of people who come to us in time of need is incorrect. And I say so again on the floor of this House: the statement was incorrect; that has not been so; that has not been the case.

MR. WILLIAMS: In view of the many cases that the ombudsman deals with, is the minister not willing to meet with the ombudsman to deal with this one on one, rather than relying on staff and other people? Clearly the ombudsman takes the matter seriously, as all of us should. Why would she not meet with the ombudsman directly, in view of the seriousness of the charges?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could remind the member who has just asked the question, as I did once before, that I do not make appointments for my office on the floor of this House. I will do that within the realm of my own office, and not in response to questions from the opposition.

U.S. DUTY ON CANADIAN PORK

MS. SANFORD: This question is for the Minister of Finance. I had wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), but he's in China. Then I wanted to ask the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), but he is in Korea. Then I thought I'd go to the Premier, but he is in Japan. Then I thought I'd go to the

[ Page 6616 ]

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I don't know where he is. So I'm going to have to ask the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister of Finance advise me....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: On behalf of that rowdy government, could the Minister of Finance advise me who has made representation on behalf of the pork producers of the province, who are facing a very serious situation as a result of the duties that have just been applied by the United States?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would note that two acting ministers, acting for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, are present in the House today. They may care to respond. If not, I'll take the question on notice for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who will return from his highly successful visit to Asia in a very few days.

[2:30]

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Finance obviously doesn't know that anyone has made any representations to Ottawa or to the United States on this issue.

The hog industry in B.C. Is worth more than $46 million annually in cash receipts. The producers in British Columbia have estimated that the effect of this punitive tariff will be the loss of approximately $24 million to the B.C. economy. I'm wondering if the Minister of Finance would assure us today that when the Premier goes down to meet with the American authorities next week, he will raise this issue of these duties as well as the one with respect to lumber.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I cannot offer a guarantee to the hon. member for Comox as to the several items which the Premier will carry to Washington, D.C., in the course of his forthcoming visit. But again, I assure the member, if it is her wish to have that information, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food will be here within, I would think, three sitting days of the asking of the question. I shall ensure that he is aware of that question.

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

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. BARNES: I would like to have the minister's cooperation in getting to some questions pursuant to the matter that we were discussing this morning, the funding that the government makes available for multicultural programs in the province — just reflecting on the conference that was held in 1979 in which the Premier had indicated there was going to be a new provincial multicultural policy following a study by the affiliated multicultural societies in the province. However, that has not been forthcoming; that is, there has been no indication that the government has decided to act on those promises. In fact, I would like to get one of the questions clarified right away: has the minister received any communication from any of the societies that were involved at that time with regard to the government's plans or intentions with respect to coming down with a multicultural policy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: As I tried to say a little earlier this morning before the member read his long-winded report from 1979, the issue of multiculturalism and the multicultural heritage adviser, Mr. Enrico Diano, is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources. So the funding is the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources. There's been a change in responsibilities in the last three months, and therefore the cultural heritage adviser answers to the Ministry of Human Resources and no longer to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BARNES: I'm not sure if it's coincidence or what, but we just happen to have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) seated in her place this afternoon. I am hoping that that is because she would like to join in the debate and clarify this question of responsibility for....

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

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hear the minister saying that he has already clarified the situation. The situation is far from clear because, with all due respect, I am left with having to rely on what is printed in the estimates to get any idea about what is to be debated in the House. If there have been some changes made since the estimates were printed, and if the government has changed its policy, I think that with respect to the opposition and those of us who are attempting to scrutinize the spending estimates of the government, it should be up to the government to provide some means whereby we can debate these estimates in a responsible way.

So I have no qualms with the Minister of Human Resources, as the new chairperson for the heritage advisory committee, standing in her place and responding to the questions. However, if she does not wish to, I am in no position to insist that she does, and I don't imagine the Chair has any authority whatsoever. Her estimates are not before the House, as you know, at this moment. So in light of that I have no other course than to treat the estimates as though they were accurately printed and reflect the situation as it currently stands.

In that light, I'd like to carry on. Since the government was unable, as I say, to provide that policy statement with respect to multiculturalism....

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

MR. BARNES: There has been a statement on the government's cultural policy? Then I would like to hear it, because that certainly would save us some time. I was going to suggest that the only policy seems to be the creation of the heritage adviser's office, which should.... If he is to exemplify government policy, if it is his role to represent the concerns of the multicultural community, then so be it.

But I would like to ask the minister how many regular meetings, for instance, does...? You mentioned Mr. Enrico Diano as the heritage adviser; how many meetings does he hold with some 30 multicultural organizations in the

[ Page 6617 ]

province? Well, I just had a note, which, of course, I already knew, Mr. Chairman, confirming my position that the funding comes under this minister, although the minister is not the chairman of the heritage advisory committee. He is a member of the committee.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Indirectly.

MR. BARNES: Well, indirect or direct, I think that the question I just asked.... How many meetings does Mr. Enrico Diano hold with the some 30 multicultural groups and immigrant services agencies in the province of British Columbia? How often has he met with them, for instance, in the past year? What evidence is there, with those he has been actively working with on the part of the government, that there is a dialogue taking place? Would the minister indicate that these meetings are taking place or not taking place? Because I'm going to move right to the questions. I'm not going to carry on too much if you deal with the questions.

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

I really can't tell you. I don't have our cultural heritage adviser's diary in my back pocket, so I have some difficulty responding as to how many meetings he's had with the 30 multicultural organizations in the province. I know that from my experience, when I had a close association with the cultural heritage adviser, he did have a very close rapport and relationship with the various multicultural groups in the province. I can't tell you precisely. I presume that he's there, ready and willing to help any of those organizations whenever help is needed.

MR. BARNES: You are still a member of the committee, right? If so, surely you know whether you've met with Mr. Enrico Diano in the past year, and you know how many times the committee has met with him. You said you have no record of his diary, but you're on the committee, and if there's been any meeting with the cabinet committee....

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

MR. BARNES: Yes.

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

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

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

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

What I would like to find out is the role of Mr. Enrico Diano. What is his specific function, his authority? What is his ability to deliver services to the people that he is representing, and are you responding? In other words, is he actually carrying out government policies, and in what specific ways is he doing so?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, he's.... I don't want to start getting involved in discussing the cultural heritage adviser, because he's answerable to the Minister of Human Resources, not the Provincial Secretary. He was answerable to me for three years, but now I don't want to start answering for the Minister of Human Resources on this issue. I'm sure I answered any questions you might have had about Mr. Diano in my estimates last year, but this year it's not my function to answer on behalf of what Mr. Diano is doing. I know I've had many meetings with him, and from those many meetings, by ourselves or by attending cultural group meetings in Vancouver, I've come to realize, through my talking to these various groups, that he has a close association with them. They're very supportive of his post and very supportive of him as a person in the function he's fulfilling.

MR. BARNES: I certainly don't wish to question his geniality, friendliness and whether he's popular — I'm sure that he is. I've met the man myself on a number of occasions and find him to be a very pleasant person, so I have no qualms with that. My concern is the function of his office vis-à-vis the questions that I was raising this morning in terms of those very real manifest needs of that great expanse of people we have out there that we call the multicultural community. I'm talking in terms of the ability of the heritage adviser to provide the services to carry out the great amount of concerns and needs on behalf of the government for the multicultural community.

[2:45]

In the public accounts for 1984-85, $225,000 is listed as having been allocated for the office of the heritage adviser. I would like to know a breakdown, if I could, of that $225,000. It does not really sound like a great deal of money, in any event, Mr. Chairman. I note that also there was only $75,000 available for grants to the community by the heritage adviser. So I am sure there must be a greater amount of funds available. Is this is a reflection of the government's policy for programs to the multicultural community? How much of this $225,000, then, is earmarked for grants, and how much does the minister estimate will be allocated to the cultural heritage adviser for the current year? We were speaking of the situation last year. How much will he receive this year, and how much of that will be available for grants? You see, the concern is how much will actually reach the groups that require the service.

In response to some of my questions this morning, the minister stated that there had been no cutbacks in cultural programs. He was making a distinction, I realize, between pure cultural programs — perhaps the arts and various events — and human services as such, like English as a second language, counselling, job training and a variety of problems that people run into who do not have a total function with the English language.

But this is an issue that somehow has been sidestepped. When I listed those peoples' impressions of what their ethnic background was this morning — and I know it was a rather long list — I think it did put before this House some perspective on how many people are involved. You know, we can talk in generalities about the population of British Columbia, and one could get the impression that we were all a sort of bland group of a collection of people of the same stripe, the same station and that there's no individuality, no diversity and no cultural difference.

Although we may be basically striving to survive within the system, I can assure you that collectively these problems are immense and they are very human. They are not unique strictly to British Columbia they are Canadian. It's a mosaic that we're talking about. We're talking about the realities of

[ Page 6618 ]

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

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You see, I don't want to get into a confrontation with the minister, but when he makes remarks like "keep spinning it out" as I'm speaking to him and trying to get some idea about what the government's commitment is to the multicultural community in this province, I feel that he may not fully appreciate the very real problem that I'm attempting to present to the House this afternoon.

I'm surprised too, because just the other day the minister and I were able to acknowledge that there's room for everybody to grow, that we all learn. He made it quite clear that having the responsibility for the arts in this province for the past few years has proven to be enlightening, and that he feels that it has had a positive effect in his job. I believe it has, so I'm not going to digress into a counterattack for any of those asides that the minister may make.

I would like him, if he would, to respond to my specific question about the $225,000. How much of that goes towards the operation of the office? How much goes toward the expense of the salary of Mr. Diano? How much goes toward his office staff? How much is remaining for grants?

HON. MR. CHABOT: When the member thought that I was attempting to divert him or throw him off base.... Needless to say, it was quite evident when the member for Victoria approached the member that he wanted to make sure that you were going to be able to continue to keep this estimate going until such time as he could gather the kind of information he's attempting to gather. Don't try to kid me about that point of view, you know. I've been around here for a little while.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is mistaken. Firstly, let me just say that my estimates do not contain funding for the cultural heritage program or the cultural heritage adviser. We are funding his program through the lottery. So as I said a little earlier, I have a very indirect association with the cultural heritage adviser, who is answerable to the Ministry of Human Resources.

You've attempted to identify the budget as $225,000. This year the budget is $306,500. His operating budget is $109,236, leaving $197,264 for other programs. The cultural heritage adviser has made a request through the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), as chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage, for additional funding. Beyond the $306,500, he has asked for an additional amount of $200,000 for various projects which he would initiate in the province on behalf of multiculturalism. My response to the Minister of Human Resources has been to convey to Mr. Diano, the contractor who is answerable to the Ministry of Human Resources, that once we have seen the specifics of the program on which he wishes to spend this additional $200,000, we will give it consideration. But I'm not prepared to approve $200,000 until I see a specific program in place.

MR. BARNES: I had no idea that the office of the heritage adviser was being funded through the lotteries. I thought that was coming directly from consolidated revenue.

This sheds a different light on the situation altogether. The minister is now saying that the government has not made a direct commitment in terms of its budgetary planning, that it is coming out of lotteries. However, if I hear him correctly, he states that approximately $200,000 will remain after expenses.... There's $306,500 in the budget for this fiscal year, some $109,000 of that for operating expenses. He's asking for another $200,000. So Mr. Diano is asking for approximately $400,000.

Interjection.

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

You have before you, I'm sure, a letter written to you on February 25, 1985, by Dr. Stanley B. Knight, president of Service for Non-English Speaking Residents, an organization with the pseudonym of Mosaic. I know the minister is familiar with this organization.

"Dear Mr. Chabot:

"Further to our earlier reports to you, enclosed please find Mosaic quarterly service statistics for October to December 1984. Please note that we had 9,333 client contacts over this period. Of this total, 30.5 percent were citizens. Similarly, 31.16 percent of new clients were citizens. Significantly, 34.89 percent of our requests were from provincial government departments."

Imagine that — 34.89 percent of those 9,333 client contacts come from provincial departments. Those provincial departments, by the way, were outlined in a brief to the Provincial Secretary: Attorney-General, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Education, Health, Human Resources, Labour, Lands, Parks and Housing, Provincial Secretary and Government Services, Transportation and Highways, Universities, Science and Communications.

In their concerns they state:

"The elimination of the refugee resettlement fund, Ministry of Labour, the fund for ESL" — that's English as a second language — "parent and preschoolers programs, Ministry of Education, and the erosion of community grants funding, Ministry of Human Resources, have created a financial crisis for our organizations. We are concerned that the provincial government has not demonstrated in what manner it will take up its responsibility to extend services to non-English-speaking people."

This little saga has been going on since April 1979.

To continue Dr. Knight's letter:

"We are hopeful that your officials who are following up with your assignment to review services to non-English-speaking residents in particular, and immigrants in general, will find the information provided by our societies as significant data for policy development. In order that you will have greater understanding of our services, we have also included five case studies related to services provided to sample clients from Japan, Italy, Greece, Vietnam and Korea.

"With regard to the creation of a B.C. cultural integration fund of $1 million, we would like you to know what other provinces are doing with immigrant-serving agencies."

[ Page 6619 ]

This, Mr. Chairman, is the point that I wish to make. If the minister approves the extra funds from the lotteries, bringing the total available to Mr. Diano to $506,000, he will still be only halfway there in terms of the demonstrated needs of this society.

Then they go on to mention Alberta: $1.2 million per year in grants to non-profit agencies that are serving immigrants through the settlement branch, Department of Labour. Ontario: approximately $4 million in grants to non-profit agencies serving immigrants through the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Manitoba — a province with few immigrants — under their access program, has recently hired a coordinator and five bilingual workers to assist immigrants. Copies of the letter, Mr. Chairman, were sent to the Hon. Grace McCarthy, Hon. Jim Chabot, Hon. Bob McClelland and Hon. Jack Heinrich as members, I'm sure, of that committee. We got in touch with the Mosaic society and were informed that as yet they have not had a response.

[3:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read my answer.

MR. BARNES: I'll be glad to. Give it to me. When you stand I certainly hope you will read it, because I'm informed that there's been no response yet from the Provincial Secretary.

Needless to say, very little money is trickling down to the various groups that are involved. I would like the minister, when he responds, to state specifically how much money is getting to those organizations. By the way, the organizations that were signators to the brief that the minister received are also listed, and for the committee's benefit they include: Immigrant and Multicultural Services Society, Prince George; Immigrant Resources Project, Vancouver; Immigrant Services Society of B.C., Vancouver; Intercultural Association of Greater Victoria; Jewish Family Services, Vancouver; Kamloops-Cariboo Regional Immigrant Services Society; Langley Refugee Resource Centre; Matsqui-Abbotsford Community Services; Mosaic, Vancouver; Oasis, Vancouver; Success, Vancouver; Surrey Delta Immigrant Services Society. Those were the organizations who, by the way, operate with a very small paid staff. Most of their services rely on volunteers. Many times, Mr. Chairman, we have listened in this assembly to various cabinet ministers state the importance of volunteerism. I can remember when the former Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Vander Zalm, wiped out the community resources board. One of the things he always stated was that volunteerism is the thing, as he was wiping out all those volunteers. "Volunteerism is the thing. We've got to have more people volunteering. We've got to have more people helping themselves." Well, I think that list of organizations I just named have a proud record of tremendous community support. But you cannot expect people of the kind of expertise that is required to do the highly specialized jobs, the jobs requiring a tremendous amount of skill, to be able to volunteer.

I think it is a pretty tragic testimony on the part of this government for us to have to realize today that the funding of the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee has to rely on lotteries. There is no real commitment on the part of this government to advance those funds on a long-term basis, a commitment that would be a very small amount of money.

We learned also this morning that the lotteries are expected to generate something like $250 million this year. The minister said "more or less." He wasn't absolutely certain, but he indicated it would be approximately $250 million gross, and that after operating costs and after costs for prizes there would be $69,340,000 remaining for grants. It's hard to imagine that the people of British Columbia are spending that kind of money — $69 million — on lotteries, but they are doing it.

As they are doing it, we are finding an interesting transformation taking place in terms of government policy. The new industry is going to take advantage of those people's addictions — whatever they do for kicks, like alcohol and....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I would say that anyone who gambles the way I used to gamble when I was in the army is hooked. From my personal experience, there is such a thing as being addicted to gambling. I think that when you see those high-pressure ads.... When you spend $20 million for government information services, there's got to be something in the high-pressure sales. This is what happens: a very large part of the lotteries budget goes towards promotion. This is becoming a new industry in British Columbia.

The minister took offence when the member for North Okanagan (Mr. MacWilliam) suggested that the government was on its way to legalizing gambling in the province: he said that couldn't be changed without an amendment to the Criminal Code, and he gave some excuses. I can suggest to the Chair that the government certainly sees the advantages of exploiting this lottery game. They have very consistently begun to remove what used to be paid for through tax dollars and through statutory responsibility. They are shifting it to the Lottery Fund. I think this is a clear example — what we're discussing today — of how that is happening with the Heritage Advisory Board receiving its funding from the Lottery Fund.

Having touched on the funding aspect, let's deal specifically again with the function. There is some real concern about the function of that office. Although the minister is saying he is not responsible, I now find out not only that he's not responsible directly as chairman of the committee but he is claiming that he doesn't even have responsibility for funding directly; that he's funding indirectly through the lotteries branch. But how could it be that $69,340,000 can be spent on all kinds of things. We know what they could be. And there is not one single million dollars for something as important as this program. I think that that question should be addressed. One million dollars is not a lot of money. I think that the people of British Columbia are going to be quite surprised when they find out that they're buying lottery tickets, and we can't fund a program such as this.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that the arguments being made by the first member for Vancouver Centre are very important ones and address the fundamental responsibilities of this minister. I really think this member should continue and complete his remarks because he is illustrating very clearly how the government is abrogating its statutory responsibilities and putting over the funding of many services to having them funded through lotteries and gambling, when the government should be taking more substantial measures to creative employment and provide services required. I think the member should continue.

[ Page 6620 ]

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

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

And he says: "We have not cut back any of the funding to the cultural groups in this province. We have increased the funding....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Right.

MR. BARNES: Well, he says "right," but in 1983 your government drastically cut funding to the immigrant service agencies of British Columbia. In 1982 the province provided 28 percent of the total funding for those organizations. In 1984 this was down to about 9 percent. As I recall on the schedule that I looked at and got these notes from, the federal government's share was increasing, while the provincial government's share was decreasing.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a government that likes to play the shell game. It says one thing and does another, and probably it does that because I think it has become a little arrogant. It probably feels that the opposition can't get accurate information, and that they won't be able to make their case because they're going to have their facts incorrect. But, you know, one day we will have access to information; Public Accounts will become more than a charade; we'll be able to make a phone call to a lotteries branch or to any other branch and be able to get information as we should as elected members of this House, regardless of whether you're the government or the opposition. These days will come to an end. The only reason they haven't come to an end is because the government has a hidden agenda with respect to what it's doing in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we should not forget that at least one member on that side of the House, at least one person, is expressing an opinion that I find dangerously close to identifying a trend on that side of the House as to what's happening in the province of British Columbia. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour....

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

MR. BARNES: This is directly related to the question of funding for multiculturalism in the province of British Columbia, and one of those members on that side of the House has stated on many occasions, nationally, that multiculturalism is nothing but a mess. He is opposed to it and feels that the government should spend nothing on multiculturalism. This is despite what is happening with the federal Ministry of Multiculturalism, despite what is happening in other provinces and despite that long list that I read out and those statistics with respect to the numbers of people in this province who do not have a mastery of English, who are immigrants, who are having various difficulties trying to keep up with the changes that are going on in this society, who are not getting a fair shake, but who are taxpayers. We're not talking about a lot of money. We're talking about $1 million, as some kind of....

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

MR. BARNES: That's not a lot of money when you think of northeast coal where you're spending $1 billion for a hole in the wrong place, Mr. Member.

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

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My apologies.

[3:15]

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

ALRT is another.... Well, we don't need to get into that, do we? We're going to have a shortfall all over the place. The point is that the government's priorities are different than what they should be for the people of British Columbia. It's been going on bit by bit all the time. It's about time we began to become aware. At one time human rights in this province was something we could be proud of, and now we've become a barren land when it comes to people's access to justice and opportunity for a fair hearing. The whole idea of appeal is another question altogether. There is no more appeal to this council. That is why there is no funding for immigrant services. That is why the multicultural program has to rely on lottery funds. The government is making no commitment itself. We're talking about $1 million when they've got $69 million clear profit coming out of the Lottery Fund. They can't afford $1 million for something as important as this?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I've just about made the main point that I want to make. I don't think the minister is going to give us the satisfaction of a commitment on this. He did state that there is a policy in place, despite my charges that he hadn't responded to Dr. Knight and others who have been trying to get the government to state its policies. I know of no response to the study that was done by Judge Norman Oreck soon after that 1979 program to develop a cultural policy. I know it was a very extensive document. It made a number of recommendations dealing with citizenship and the real problems of persons who are unfortunate enough to have a disadvantage in some way in our society and need access to services, the justice system, training and retraining. Then, of course, there's a very special problem with females in society; some of those cases are even worse. They're still being exploited, as we know.

There is a very real need to provide at least a minimum amount of service where people want to volunteer. You may have 100 volunteers and five paid people. That's a pretty good deal, even in terms of the government's economics. But why is the government not opting to support these programs? There is probably a fundamental reason, Mr. Chairman, one that I feel is tragically unfortunate. But it's glaringly obvious. The government is cutting back, and it's cutting back in areas where it's hurting people. People are beginning to become disillusioned and give up hope, especially when they hear of

[ Page 6621 ]

some of the decisions the government has made with respect to its program for generating jobs and generating economic activity in the community. I can't help but mention these points, as much as I'd like to adhere strictly to the rules of the House.

I think that there comes a time when you have to become a bit alarmed at the glaring arrogance and seeming indifference of this government from time to time. I think there is some question about this government's commitment to non-English-speakers in the province. The government should be putting its money where its mouth is. The Premier made a promise in April 1979 that he really should keep. If he's not going to keep it, he should come into this House and say why he's not going to keep it. It's pretty obvious to everyone that that road toward a provincial multicultural policy was really a road toward the May 4 election, because nothing has happened since. Five or six years later, the government has reduced its funding for immigrant services to a mere 9 percent, while it is anticipating a $69,340,000 profit from lotteries. It is turning its back on hundreds of volunteers and a few paid staff who want to try to deal with the thousands of people in serious, legitimate need. Those citizens should have a constitutional right to at least a few of the basic amenities in this society. We take far too much for granted with respect to their tolerance and their ability to function without any help. It's tough out there, Mr. Chairman, and you know it. It's very difficult out there for people who come to this country and do not have the ability to compete on an equitable basis with others in society. We also know that that's a characteristic all over the world. It's about time we understood the importance of more humanitarian measures and recognized the spill-off benefit from encouraging people rather than discouraging them.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Out of order.

MR. BARNES: ...but I'm not going to mention them. I have to smile at that because that reminds me of.... Well, there is something going on right now that it reminds me of, but I don't think I'll share that either.

Well, as I've said, Mr. Chairman, the issue really is one of desire, of will. It's not really a question of ability. Now the government has coined a few phrases about ability to pay when it comes to increases for wages, etc., etc. We've got all these fancy terms, but it's a matter of will. It's a matter of recognizing what is important, and I think there's been ample evidence here today to demonstrate that in its wisdom the government simply is not able to see the consequences of what it's doing.

Now I know that it has its ideological differences, and I know that they very stridently fight every political war they can on the basis of the good guys versus the bad guys, and that's fair enough. But we're talking about a government that was elected by the people of British Columbia to serve all of the people of British Columbia, regardless of their station and their personal situation, to give them access — not only give them, but to have them feel that they have access — and for them to have the option. But that isn't the case.

I've spared the House some of those case histories, but they are there indeed, and I think a government is measured by its ability to respond to the most extreme and dire straits that a person may be in. You can go to the food banks any day and find someone you should care about — and we can care about. In fact, it is good business to care about them, as we discussed the other day about the arts. We talked about the value of spending dollars on the arts, on helping the guy who spends a great deal of his life trying to develop a craft or a skill or achieve some kind of sense in which he feels he's contributing, some sense of wholeness.

But we're losing that, and when we look at the dollars that are involved, how can we justify it? Are we so callous that we say we can't afford it? How can we not afford it? We are increasing our costs on remedial programs, incarceration. People are having all kinds of emotional breakdowns. The health care costs are going up; we're having to raise premiums to try to pay for all the health costs.

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

MR. BARNES: Thank you. But these are the things that I'm asking the minister if he would rethink his position on, at least with respect to the request by Dr. Knight for the $1 million to bring us in line with the rest of Canada. We have a federal Minister of Multiculturalism, and have had one for a number of years, for good reason. Canada is a mosaic of people; we all should feel right about being Canadian, and I think that in the province of British Columbia we are discouraging people by not providing them the funding that they need. Even when we do, they have to rely on the lotteries fund.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a few words in response to the member. First of all, the majority of his talk had nothing to do with my ministry. I just want to respond regarding the letter from Stan Knight of Mosaic, in which he requested funding. The letter was written in late February. My responsibilities for the cultural heritage cabinet committee and the cultural heritage adviser ceased about March 2. If I recall correctly, and I don't have a copy of it here, I wrote to Dr. Knight and informed him that I was no longer responsible for multicultural affairs, and that I had referred his letter to the Minister of Human Resources for her attention.

Now the member as he speaks fails to take into consideration the fact that government revenues have turned down very dramatically in recent years. He seems to forget that. Government has had to cut back in many areas. That's part of the logic that the member fails to take into consideration when he pleads for this funding — one million here and a half a million there and so forth. He also touches on many of the programs that were cut out of various ministries of government. They weren't cut out of my ministry, because essentially there's been no cutback in my ministry.

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

[ Page 6622 ]

job-training fund, as well, is part of the Ministry of Education. Many of the program that you're talking about were funded by Human Resources, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education, not by the Provincial Secretary. So all your pleading for specific programs should have been with other ministers of the cabinet, rather than myself.

All I can say about multicultural activities as far as my ministry is concerned, even though I have a very indirect relationship with the cultural heritage adviser, is that never before since I've been minister has there been more money allocated for the cultural heritage adviser. It has increased consistently since I've been the minister because of the need of addressing certain programs and certain initiatives out there.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

But it was never the intention that the funding through the cultural heritage adviser should pick up the slack from the various programs that were cut back by other ministries of government. The way you reflect on the funding, because of the very difficult budgetary problems the provincial government has.... You talk about the lottery funds as if those dollars are tainted. There are a lot of communities in British Columbia that are ready and willing to accept those dollars for a great variety of projects, be they recreational facilities.

You talk about one measly million dollars from the Lottery Fund. Well, we spend a fair amount of money for medical research. We spend $3.15 million for medical research each and every year, and that comes from lottery funds. Are you suggesting that we should take that million dollars that you are asking for out of medical research? I don't know what you are suggesting. Should we take it out of cultural programs? Shall we take it out of sporting programs? I don't know.

MR. BARNES: Northeast coal.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Northeast coal has nothing to do with lottery funds and has nothing to do with my ministry. You seem to be a little confused. This is not a dictatorship in British Columbia, and as a minister of the Crown, I can't possibly speak for the whole government. I speak for my ministry, and I can't go beyond that scope.

I attempt to address all of the issues that are raised to me, and attempt to provide funding for what I consider a public interest situation from the Lottery Fund, and I will continue to do so, thank you very much.

[3:30]

MR. MITCHELL: Before I get started, and before you start ruling me out of order in discussing something that doesn't come under his ministry, I would like to establish my credentials of dealing with this subject under this ministry. It's based on a report that was filed with this House in 1982 by Evan Wolfe, the predecessor of the present Provincial Secretary. It's called "Developing a Pension Policy for the Future." I would like to....

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

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

Interjection.

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

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to establish the credentials of this. In the news release issued by the present minister's predecessor, he stated: "The purpose of this paper is to stimulate public discussion and provide input to government in this most important area. In tabling the paper, the government is following through on a commitment made in the throne speech at the start of the current session of the Legislature."

Just to refresh the minister's memory, that was the throne speech of 1982, which was the throne speech prior to the 1983 election. Maybe that particular section was in the throne speech at that time as an election gimmick. Maybe this "Developing a Pension Policy for the Future" was a game presented to this House as an election gimmick. That may be something that I am not aware of.

But I am aware that since that date there has been nothing from the present minister or the government to establish something that should have been established 50 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago. Often the good things that should have taken place never took place, and if we wait, we can't go back to the 30 or 40 years ago; all we can do is start today, because tomorrow may be too late. This is something that I have spoken on on many occasions in this House, that one of the things we do need in British Columbia is the complete portable pension. The greatest creator of employment is the small business community, those who are working in construction, those working in jobs that may last six months, six years. It is so important.

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

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

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

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I think it's so important that we in this Legislature realize that out in the real world there are a large group of British Columbians who do not have the pleasure that the present minister has of collecting 4 or 5 percent of his salary times the number of years he has sat in this House, plus the pensions he may have accumulated in his last place of employment. A lot of people work all their lives in jobs that if they had an opportunity to develop a stake in a pension plan of some sort, when they came to that magical age of 65 that the minister makes fun of, they would have an opportunity to retire in dignity. But we have an inadequate Canada Pension Plan that has a very minimum pension after a lifetime of employment. We have a right-wing Conservative government that's trying to cut even that back by failing to index completely the old-age pension and the Canada pension. People build up in the retirement pension a share of the money that they earned in various forms of employment. It's not important if a person works for six months or six years, but every day that a person works in any form of employment he should have an opportunity to put in his contributions. He should also have an opportunity for the

[ Page 6623 ]

employer that he's working for to put in a similar contribution, and that contribution should be locked into a pension plan for when he reaches that magical age of retirement, whenever it is.

The government made it a major issue in the throne speech in 1982: that they were going to develop a pension policy for British Columbia. They talked in glowing terms of pension portability and brought out a policy paper on various types of pension plans that may be instituted. I'm not saying they should necessarily be under the provincial pension plan, or that they should be private or federal, but there must be an approach by the government — by every one of us in the Legislature — to provide an opportunity for a person. When he goes to work for McDonald's at age 16, or if he carries on through other jobs in mills or construction or retail stores, every day that he works, every employer he works for and as he moves from one job to another, his contribution and that of his employer is building up, so that when he reaches that magical age he is able to receive a pension based on the amount of money he's put into it, or based on the best four years of his wages, like we enjoy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, the Chair is having considerable difficulty relating the argument to the minister's responsibilities with respect to government and Crown corporation employees. Possibly the debate is more relevant to a throne speech or overall budget debate rather than within the estimates. If the member can relate it to the minister's administrative functions, it obviously would then be appropriate.

MR. MITCHELL: That is why, Mr. Chairman, I attempted to establish my credibility by referring to the policy paper that was filed in this House by a previous Provincial Secretary, Evan Wolfe, in 1982. This was his policy under this estimate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will appreciate that the hon. member that filed that policy is no longer the Provincial Secretary. We are dealing with the estimates of the years 1985-86. Would the member please continue.

MR. MITCHELL: What I'm dealing with is the policy that should be coming out of that minister's office to follow up what his predecessor filed in this House, based on his interpretation of what was promised in the throne speech of 1982. I'm saying that the present minister has failed miserably in his position; that he has not given leadership in the cabinet. He has not given leadership in this House. He has not given the leadership to follow through with the promise that was made in 1982, that came out of a policy of Evan Wolfe. He has done absolutely nothing.

I'm sorry that the minister decided that he would leave the House and is not going to be here to give a reasonable answer for what the government's policy is. What is his ministry's policy? He's only looking after one ministry: that is, Provincial Secretary, a ministry that should be giving some leadership, at least to follow up on what was promised back in 1982. As I say, I'm sorry that the government is not looking ahead in British Columbia. We have gone from one disaster to another. We have failed to make any long-range plans, and we're having this problem.... It's been recognized by the federal government. They have their deficits, and they are cutting back on people who have worked all their life — cutting back on their pensions. I know that is not in his particular ministry.

I'm happy that the minister is back in the House, Mr. Chairman. Now we can get back to discussing it in detail. We had a hard time, Mr. Minister, covering the important parts of it when you were not in the House to give some input. The Chairman did his best to keep it defused so we could fill in the time.

What I have asked.... And I will repeat for your hearing, now that you are back. The government has failed to give any leadership; they have failed to make any statements since the throne speech in 1982 or the policy papers that were filed in 1982. I think it's important, if we are going to establish some type of pension, that the government should either give it some serious thought, or say: "Yes, we brought it out in 1982 because it was an election gimmick that was taking place in the election of 1983." If that is the policy, fine; get up and say it. But if there is a need.... Let's remember that there are still 70 percent of the people in B.C. working; 70 percent are out there every day contributing to the betterment of British Columbia. Every day there are hundreds and thousands of them moving from one job to another, and every day they are failing to establish some financial security for their future. The opportunity is not there, because this little minister has not given us any direction.

I seriously recommend again to the minister that he set up one of our parliamentary committees to study the need for portable pensions, and go out and meet not only the trade union movement but the insurance companies and those who are involved in putting pension packages together. Go out and ask the people of British Columbia: do they want to participate and invest in their future? Do they want to have that opportunity — that when they move from one job to the other they not only are taking their potential contribution, but the opportunity must be there for them to also take with them the employer's contribution, so that when they reach later years in life they are going to be able to have something to fall back on? If we don't make that stand, if we don't take that position now.... Every day we leave it and every day we say that there is some other problem.... It's a problem that those who follow us in this House are going to be faced with.

[3:45]

Again, I'm sorry that the minister hasn't given any direction, hasn't made any statement on it. I ask him at this point: has he considered it since he has taken over that position? Has he studied the policy papers that were filed? Does his ministry have any recommendation to the government for establishing some parliamentary committee or some followup committee to the papers that were filed here?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think the member is referring to the Green Paper on pensions. There was a document released by my predecessor on the issue of pensions a few years ago. I hope that the member doesn't jump to conclusions that the formulating of a pension policy is something that can be done overnight. The member makes reference to my pension position and so forth.

That reminds me of when I was in opposition. We had a Minister of Mines in the socialist government between 1972 and 1975 who was bringing in onerous royalties and penalties against the mining industry, killing mining jobs in British Columbia. I told him at that particular time: "Mr. Minister," — I couldn't call him Mr. Nimsick then; it was Mr. Minister — "you know, it's fine for you to kill all these mining jobs in

[ Page 6624 ]

British Columbia, because you are comfortable. You qualify for the old age security, and you are receiving the old age security from the federal government, because you're over age 65."

I indicated to him that he had a pension from Cominco for having worked for them for 35 years as well, and that he was also eligible, once he took his retirement from his cabinet position, for a handsome pension for having been a member of this House as well. So here was a member who had three pensions and was in the process of killing virtually every mining job in this province. So I hope you don't raise these issues in comparison to other people's pension positions.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You know, I threw a very serious question across to the member as he was speaking. He wants to shilly-shally away from the question. He didn't want to respond. I asked the member what his views were on the issue of compulsory retirement. Does he believe in compulsory retirement at age 65, or age 60, or any other age? What's his position on compulsory retirement? It's not an easy question, but the member must have some kind of opinion on that issue. I think he should express it. I don't want you to express your trade union point of view; I just want you to express your personal point of view from the bottom of your heart.

On the issue of pensions, I don't think that.... We've had substantial public input on the issue of pension in British Columbia — vesting, portability, and all those other issues. We've had a lot of input since 1982, since the Green Paper was issued. It's a very complex subject, and then there are differing points of view as well. I've discussed the issue with actuaries. Since I've been in the ministry, we've had two or maybe three provincial ministers responsible for pension conferences in eastern Canada, where we sat down and discussed this issue of pensions, which is a very complex issue. We weren't able to reach a consensus on the issue of pensions at those conferences.

I know that there will be a meeting in the not too distant future, more than likely a federal-provincial conference on the issue of pensions. I propose to give an update to cabinet on where we stand and what the outstanding issues are vis-à-vis pensions in British Columbia in the not too distant future, in the weeks ahead.

It isn't that we have forgotten a paper that was put forward by my predecessor; it's just the fact that it's not that easy to reach a consensus, and it takes some time, but we're actively pursuing it.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to thank you. The minister did get serious near the end. He started off with his attack on someone who is not here to defend himself — a personal attack. I've heard of snow jobs and I've heard of smokescreens, but I guess what we really had there was a pea soup fog.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh! Racist statement.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I take exception to the member making reference to me as a pea-souper, or a pea soup frog, just because I'm a French Canadian. I think he should withdraw that racist remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member intended....

MR. MITCHELL: I didn't say a pea soup frog; I said a pea soup fog. If he takes that as racist, I withdraw it.

You don't take a serious subject like this and attack somebody because he had a pension that he worked for at Cominco. He earned every pension nickel he got out of Cominco. Just living in that country you earn that pension. Everyone who works at Cominco earns every cent he gets in pension. I don't care if it was the MLA who worked there; he earned that pension. You don't attack him because he has a pension. You don't attack him because he happens to live in Canada, reaches the magical age of 65 and qualifies for a pension, any more than I attack you because you have spent your 20-odd years in this House. You've earned every cent of a pension you're going to get, and any other pension investments you may have accumulated.

What I am saying is that every British Columbian, no matter where he works, should have an opportunity to build up something in the same way as the previous Minister of Mines whom you were attacking. You or any one of us have had the opportunity because we've been in the right places at the right times. That's all I'm saying. I'm not condemning you or anyone else. I say that all British Columbians should have that same right that we are going to enjoy.

You ask me what my position is on compulsory retirement at 65. I have no problem giving you my position. I think that we in government, and in the community, must have a flexible position on retirement at 65. I think that maybe it should be 60. I spent 25 years, hoping to retire at 55. So I believe that there are times in everyone's life....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I worked it, and if I could have retired at 55, I would have been enjoying my retirement at 55. But it didn't happen. So I'm here.

I remember many constituency problems I had with the UIC and unemployment insurance. In one particular plant there was a father of 60. His son, who was in his twenties, was married and had a mortgage. Because the son had less seniority, he had to be laid off, and the father had to stay on. I say that it's better to put that man on early retirement. In that particular case the father wanted to go on unemployment insurance so his son could continue to work. I think that we have to look at making sure there are jobs available for the youth of this province. If it means earlier retirement — I don't say it should be compulsory, but there should be the opportunity for those who want to retire at 55, 60 or 62.... If there is some type of pension portability, if there is some flexibility, without everything being written in stone, then a person.... For everyone who wants to fight for retirement at 65, there are many who would like to retire at 62.

There are certain occupations in which a person shouldn't be on the job at 60. I happened to be in one, before being elected, where it was mandatory that you retire at 60. But those who worked on the job realized that foot policemen should not be on the job after 55. There are types of occupations like that, where it should be built into the system that they pay more into it, and that the employer pay more into it, so that when they reach that age when they are really not

[ Page 6625 ]

capable of doing a proper job, they have an opportunity to take a pension and either do some of the many part-time jobs or enjoy the money.

I have no hesitation in saying that I am not opposed to mandatory retirement at 65. I think something should be built in whereby one can retire earlier. You asked me my personal position. That is my personal position. If you want to take that and smear it as some kind of biased anglophone opinion, you can do it. I'm a white-haired anglophone, and I don't hesitate to say that. But if the government has some intention of doing something, involve not only the bureaucrats at the top, not only the ministers and not only travelling back and forth to Ottawa, you know.... Why, you spend your $18,000 in travel.... If you're going to accomplish something, if you're going out there and going to accomplish something, fine. But also involve those who are going to benefit, those who are in need, those in the workforce, those employers who want to make some preparation for their employees. Involve the people in the community, and don't be afraid to go out and ask questions.

The problem is there. Identify it, and listen to some of the suggestions. You may have trouble getting a consensus from the ministers, because they come and go. They're here today, and they're gone tomorrow. We have a new minister in the Provincial Secretary's position, but the problem is still there. The problem is not being faced, and this government, though they promised it before the last election, have really not done anything but travel back and forth and made a few little remarks which I think are out of place.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just am not too clear on the member's response to my question on mandatory retirement. What are your views about an individual who might want to work until age 70 or 75? There could be a great variety of circumstances where an individual who might have a young family or a family in university and needs additional income....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster rises on a point of order.

[4:00]

MR. COCKE: It's not the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's estimates that we're discussing at the moment. I wonder if the minister could defend his own and not ask questions of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I'll accept that point of view, but really the member was suggesting that there's a need for additional input into this Green Paper on pensions. So I was just attempting to secure his point of view about an individual who might want to work beyond what is now deemed to be mandatory retirement age, 65.

MR. COCKE: Would you like mine? Because we could go all afternoon.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I don't want yours. I'm asking his. If a guy wants to work until 70 or 75....

MR. MITCHELL: The minister wasn't listening when I gave him my answer. I said that the retirement age must have built-in flexibility, and if a person wants to retire early, then that opportunity should be there. It should be built in. If the man wants to go to 70 because he has a young family, then let him go, providing — and I say providing — that he is capable of doing that job. What I said was that there are certain policemen who should not be on the road at 60. So that is my position.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I very much appreciate the point of view expressed by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, which suggests that he's not in favour of mandatory retirement and that there should be some flexibility. I very much appreciate his expression of opinion on that issue.

MR. HANSON: I have a question of the minister. Earlier this year a letter was sent to all employees of government and all pensioners, people that had previously worked for the government, for the province, and my understanding is that a similar letter is going out to all the teachers, inviting them to purchase Expo tickets. The government employees were invited to involve themselves in some kind of a payroll deduction process. Now I don't think we have any objections to that at all. My question is about the government employees themselves, who asked for a similar payroll checkoff for their own people on a volunteer basis to make a payroll deduction to support the unemployment action centres in the province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've already answered those questions.

MR. HANSON: Well, as the debate leader on your ministry, I would like to ask you myself why you had an objection to that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a question from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) this morning on that same issue of food banks, I gave the answers. I guess if you really want the answers, the Blues are available. Maybe I can get the Blues sent over to you; then you'll have the information. I don't think it's necessary that I should start repeating myself on this particular issue, when I've clearly expounded on the reasons why we're not able to accommodate that particular request from the BCGEU. We're attempting to respond to the B.C. Federation of Labour's request for various trade unions in the province to garner these funds. I gave a very comprehensive response this morning on the difficulties we have with the computers in attempting to accommodate that particular request, because all the spaces on the computer are fully occupied. I indicated that the computers involved, the computers within the Ministry of Finance for payroll purposes, are not computers that are in the Ministry of Provincial Secretary. I gave a very elaborate and thorough response to that question this morning.

MR. HANSON: It is ironic that there was enough space on the computer program for payroll deductions for Expo tickets, but not to make some compassionate donation to volunteer organizations such as the unemployment action centres.

[Mr. Veitch in the Chair.]

However, in view of the minister's extravagant advertising and propaganda budget, increased in the government information services by $2 million — from $18 million to over $20 million — in this year at a time when the people of this province are in the depths of a Socred depression, and the fact that the government polls extensively and uses tax dollars for

[ Page 6626 ]

polling without any disclosure of the questionnaires or the results, in fact without any disclosure whatsoever to the public for these expenditures, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move a motion that vote 60, Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government Services' salary, be reduced by $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please forward the motion to the Chair.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Speaking to the motion, if the motion's in order.... I just want to clarify that point first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will examine the motion for a moment, please.

It appears to the Chair that the motion is in order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would first of all like to once again identify the projected expenditures in the government information services for the edification of the members opposite. I've been able to put to rest many of the erroneous statements that they've brought forward to the House during the debates of my estimates. They've brought some great revelations to this Assembly on preapprovals of the budget for government information services. Oh, there was a very serious diversion of normal procedures as far as government information services are concerned. I identified for that little opposition over there that this was a natural procedure that had been in place since 1981 and that is not applicable only to government information services, but applies to all ministries of government. After that member from Victoria had been toying around with this particular subject that there was something devious, something sinister about preapprovals of the budget of government information services, he attempted to make this great revelation at the Public Accounts Committee time and time again and was unsuccessful. Then he brought his revelation to this House. Then he was shot down; he didn't have a revelation after all, and it was just a natural process from Treasury Board that had been in place since 1981. Lo and behold, the argument and the big build-up which that little member from Victoria had had been shot down because preapproval has been a directive from Treasury Board since 1981 and the controls on those expenditures, and the regulations dealing with the controls, are issued by the comptroller-general and are public information.

Now we also heard a great revelation from the little member for New Westminster, who thought that the Provincial Secretary should resign because he'd picked up a voucher in Public Accounts that revealed that there had been money expended — $78,000 — for advertising for the Social Credit Party just before the election of 1983. He had a great revelation. He brought it here. The member should resign. "I want you to know," he says, "I've just found out that that Social Credit Party was using government information services taxpayers' money out of the advertising budget for the purpose of political advertising just before the election of May 1983. I brought the answers back that really reveal that these funds were allocated for tourism, for TV advertising, wherein the bulk of that money was spent in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is absolute nonsense. They were not advertised through Maclean's and whatever other magazine you were referring to. Absolute nonsense.

So these little members over here who had great revelations about the advertising budget and how it's being used and abused, and how there are sinister goings-on in government vis-à-vis the advertising budget, were completely demolished with their false and inappropriate stories. Oh, how those guys across the way have been wronged, Mr. Chairman. And then, oh, they had some great revelations. There should be an inquiry about bingo operations in British Columbia. The member for Nanaimo put to rest all the concerns and the requests for inquiries that have been made by the member for North Okanagan when he said there was no need for an inquiry in this province, and there's nothing wrong with competition in bingo halls in B.C.

They have not succeeded. They've shown how divided those socialists are on certain issues. How do they ever expect to face the people, the electorate of this province, in the kind of divided and ununified means which they're in right now? It's absolutely appalling. What was once a noble and straightforward political party in this province we see today in absolute shambles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A political party that has no principles; it doesn't know where it stands from day to day. That's what the socialists stand for, Mr. Chairman — shambles.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to repeat for the members of the opposition just where the money goes. They're a little upset; they just haven't been able to get any media coverage from these four sessions of the debates under the Provincial Secretary's ministry. They haven't succeeded in getting any ink in the newspapers, so they have to bring in a little motion. They've got to do something dramatic to get a little bit of media attention, which they haven't been able to get. So they're going to attempt something dramatic. I'm just going to tell those members again, for their own information, where the money goes from government information services.

First of all, government information services is responsible for the advertising of various ministries of government, and I'm not going to tell you all the various objects. I've already told you that the Attorney-General's ministry has to do advertising for the law reform commission, publications of reports and working papers, Counterattack and traffic safety, reports on boards and commissions. That's why some of this advertising budget is for that particular ministry. But the dollar allocation.... You people have been attempting to create suspicion and a false image in the minds of the people about the advertising budget; that it's being misused, that it's being used for political purposes. I've proven how wrong you are.

[4:15]

Allocated for the Agriculture and Food Ministry, $487,000; Attorney-General's ministry, $540,000; Consumer and Corporate Affairs, $63,000; Education, $819,000; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, $367,000; Environment, $382,000; Finance, $192,000; Forests, $393,000; Health, $827,000; Human Resources, $130,000; Industry and Small Business Development, $500,000; IGR, $14,000; International Trade and Investment, $500,000; Labour, $568,000; Lands, Parks and Housing, $979,000; Municipal Affairs, $26,000; Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government Services, $248,000;

[ Page 6627 ]

Transportation and Highways, $287,000; Universities, Science and Communications, $155,000; GIS, $529,000; Tourism, $9,100,000, for a total of $17,106,000. The increase this year is the result of an additional $1.5 million assigned to Tourism for Expo, $300,000 for Counterattack and traffic safety, and the establishment of a new ministry, International Trade and Investment, $400,000. That's the reason for the increase and projected expenditures from GIS this year.

I wonder which part of these projected expenditures the opposition thinks should be cut. A lot of these projected expenditures are mandatory in nature; they're statutory in nature. There's an obligation on the part of the Crown because of legislation to do some of this advertising. Also, there are the salaries and benefits. There are people who work in GIS, $1, 957, 969; the occupancy charge for GIS is $300,000; processing, office expenses and travel, etc., is $195,000; professional services is $870,000 — which is the makeup of the budget for government information services this year.

So, Mr. Speaker, the opposition, in their long-winded so-called attack, have been shallow indeed, shallow not only today, but shallow for the last four sessions of these estimates. I've never seen such a shabby and shallow opposition as I've witnessed this year in this chamber. They're to be pitied for their shabbiness and their shallowness.

MR. HANSON: What that minister doesn't want the public of this province to know is that under $2 million of the total advertising budget is for statutory advertising; the other $18 million is for what they call "informational" advertising. Propaganda. When all of the estimates of this Legislature are restrained, when the Education estimates are restrained, when the Health budgets are restrained, when the social services of this province are cut and restrained because of the bankrupt economic policies of this government, and the information and advertising budget increases by almost 10 percent, from $18 million to over $20 million; when the polling takes place at an average of a quarter of a million dollars a year without any disclosure, without any proper reporting procedure; when vouchers are buried and hidden in piles over in the Douglas building in Finance....

That's why we're moving this motion to reduce that member's salary by a dollar. You have no right during a depression to increase advertising and propaganda when people need employment. They need candour. They don't need imaging. They don't need Hollywood fixers. They want an honest and forthright government. You should be cutting back in that advertising budget, not expanding it. Every single household in the province is paying $22 towards government advertising; that's within the provincial government itself. They would rather have that $22 spent on something else. They don't need those phoney little news stories on BCTV when the news is on.

They like to refer back to the NDP days, when the advertising budget was $5 million dollars; now it's over $20 million within the government, $25 million for Expo, and we hear it's even larger now with the new advertising contract to Vrlak Robinson. I hear that's a biggie. We don't have the exact number, but we hear it's a very big advertising budget.

There isn't any money for increasing social assistance rates, but there's lots of extra money for advertising. That is the reason for the motion. Mr. Chairman, we urge that you call the vote on this motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that vote 60, the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Service's salary, shall be reduced by $1.

Motion negatived on the following division:

NAYS — 22

YEAS — 16

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we have two mighty women in our gallery today. I'd like the committee to welcome Shannon O'Neal and Corliss Miller.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Mr. Ashton, a teacher from Harold Bishop Elementary School, and the classes of elementary students that are in the audience in the House today from sunny Surrey.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like the House to welcome Mr. John Gregory, from my constituency, who is also on the board at Capilano College and works for CJVB radio in Vancouver.

Vote 60 approved.

Vote 61: ministry operations, $60,464,576 — approved.

Vote 62: government information services, $20,428,969 — approved.

Vote 63: pensions and employee benefits administration, $10 — approved.

[ Page 6628 ]

Vote 64: pensions and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 43, Mr. Speaker.

LOTTERY CORPORATION ACT

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly indeed pleased to rise and speak to second reading of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation Act. This act formally establishes a Crown corporation that has already generated jobs and other benefits in British Columbia, and has become one of our leading corporate citizens. I would like to explain how and why we came to establish this Crown corporation, and how, since its inception, it has moved to the leading edge of lottery technology in the world.

[4:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In 1974 Canada's four western provinces formed the Western Canada Lottery Foundation and agreed in writing that the head office would be located in Winnipeg for the first ten years. As the lottery business grew, the centre of sales shifted to British Columbia. The people of this province provided more than 50 percent of the WCLF's business and paid more than 50 percent of the administrative and staff costs. By 1984 the business was employing 150 people in its Winnipeg head office, and it seemed logical at the end of the ten-year agreement that the head office, its staff positions and its payroll should move closer to the centre of retail sales.

British Columbia made this suggestion to the other Western provinces in 1982 to give ample time for discussion and consideration. By July 1984, however, when the agreement had expired, no decision had yet been reached. We then proceeded to establish our own lottery corporation and employ British Columbians to run it.

After careful consideration of all the options, Kamloops was chosen as the site for the corporation headquarters. Kamloops is a centrally located city with moderate commercial rents and a promising future. Locating the lottery head office there has given the city a boost. It has brought 130 new jobs and a substantial payroll to the city. It has brought upgraded telecommunications to the central interior and the potential for many spinoff benefits. The newly renovated Seymour Street building that houses the corporation and its state-of-the-art data centre, has, as one newspaper stated, "added a touch of class to the downtown core." Approximately $4 million was spent on refinishing the building, with union and non-union firms working side by side to meet very demanding deadlines.

Of the 130 staff now employed by the corporation, only three are from out of province. Included in those three is Mr. Guy Simonis, an internationally recognized leader in the field of lottery administration who left the Western Canada Lottery Foundation to head our corporation. Under Mr. Simonis's guidance the corporation has purchased and installed a sophisticated computer network that is built to the very latest technological specifications. Its software, especially its management information systems, is the most advanced in its field and has already brought inquiries from as far away as Singapore. We are optimistic that a substantial market for our software is beginning to open up.

In the U.S. congressional elections last year, four more states passed initiatives to establish state lotteries. This brings to 18 the number of states with legal lotteries. These jurisdictions more often than not look to other governments for consultation in setting up secure lottery systems. The expertise, the reputation and the systems established in this province put us in a leading position in the international lottery market.

Although the secure and efficient administration of lotteries in British Columbia was our first priority in establishing this corporation, we have a secondary objective: to be self-sufficient in the lottery business and a major supplier of lottery technology to the world. In this connection we're pursuing the establishment of a ticket-printing business in Kamloops, which will result in many more jobs for that city, and a plant to assemble terminals. We are confident we can penetrate the American market with this expertise as well as with our specialized management information systems.

I think it is important to recognize that this bill does not deal with the spending of lottery funds. The BCLC is in the business of lotteries. It raises revenue for government. The Lottery Corporation does not spend the money it raises. The spending of lottery revenue on culture, sport, heritage, health care research and so on comes under another piece of legislation, the Lottery Act.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, all British Columbians will benefit from the business the British Columbia Lottery Corporation performs, and I'm proud to have played a part in establishing the BCLC. I move second reading.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we will not be supporting this legislation, because it fails to address the very real problem of the politically partisan distribution of lottery proceeds in this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member has a prepared speech, and obviously he wasn't aware that we have a lottery corporation which looks after the expenditure of lottery revenue. This bill merely sets up the corporation, as I said in my opening remarks. It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the projected expenditures of the revenue derived from the Lottery Corporation. All this does is put in place the management and director structure for the operation of the Lottery Corporation. It has nothing to do with the Lottery Act, which is responsible for the expenditure of funds.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the point of order, which is well in order. However, the Chair does extend some leeway to a member in developing his debate — which in all likelihood will become relevant to the bill.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in this bill, as the minister is fully aware, there is provision for the deletion of a section of the act that he's referring to, the one which handles the disbursement, substituting language which will allow this minister to spend or disburse the funds in any manner he considers in the public interest. It has long been our contention that lottery funds have a potential for abuse when they are distributed by politicians. The proceeds, after operating expenses and so on have been paid for — the funds which go

[ Page 6629 ]

under the provisions of the other piece of legislation referred to by the minister.... Under this bill the minister has the authority to spend that money in any manner he deems to be in the public interest. We feel that the potential has long been demonstrated in the disbursement of lottery grants and funds that they are inequitable, and they will always be inequitable when they are entirely in the hands of a politician. It is incorrect and wrong for the minister to be presiding over the disbursement of the lottery grants. There should be an advisory board, which was originally called for in the legislation and never ever complied with. There is a provision under the existing statute that allows for the establishment of an advisory council or an advisory board that would be a check on the government in their disbursement of these funds.

When we look at where the funds go, oftentimes we see that they are going into ridings where the Socred margin is extremely small, and there appears to be no justification for that kind of allocation. Also we have long asked for a full disclosure pointing out the applications that were turned down, because it's not good enough to just include a list of grants made. We must know who the unsuccessful applicants are and why they were turned down.

Mr. Speaker, another point of contention that we certainly don't approve of is that this then moves the lottery disbursement process as established under a Crown corporation further away from the scrutiny of the Legislature. That is a real problem, because at one point we had a Crown corporations reporting committee with a small staff — a very small and competent staff — administered in this House. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) chaired that committee and sat with members of this House to examine the Crown corporations, whether it was B.C. Ferries, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail. In this instance they would be able to examine the B.C. Lottery Corporation. But no such body exists now, Mr. Speaker.

This act removes the lottery apparatus in operation outside the scrutiny of this House. It is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, because there are no provisions that provide any kind of check or balance on the kind of political disbursement which I've previously mentioned and which is of concern not only to members of this House but to the public at large.

When people buy lottery tickets, they buy them for various reasons. One is that they want to have the opportunity to win a prize, but they also know that when they don't win, the proceeds that go to the Crown are to be used for meritorious projects, for recreational or cultural projects. There is no such language or criteria in this bill, although some language does exist within the Lottery Act, which says: "cultural, recreational and any matters deemed by the minister to be meritorious in the public interest." We don't like the political interference in the disbursement of lottery funds. It's got to be moved away from politicians if it's to be disbursed fairly. That is our objection, Mr. Speaker. We will be voting against this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to reiterate what my colleague has said on this bill. Certainly section 12 of the bill deals specifically with amendments to the Lottery Act, which the minister tried to indicate weren't part of this act. He indicated that this money was just going to be turned over to the Lottery Fund, but he didn't mention that section 12 amends that Lottery Act. What it does is....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, yes. It takes it out of the hands of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation, which was where those decisions were made previously, and it specified, as my colleague has said, certain things: the cultural heritage of the province, or for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of that Western Canada Lottery Foundation. He has now seen fit to withdraw from the Western Canada Lottery Foundation and establish his own lottery.

What you're doing is putting it all in your own hands, so you make the decisions. That is just altogether too much politics. We've had example after example, and the figures have shown it very clearly, of the tendency to use those funds for purposes — even as it was — that were not really consistent with the objectives of the foundation and were certainly more consistent with some partisan political schedule that that minister had in the back of his mind, or that government had. And what we're doing now is putting it strictly in his hands, no comeback. It's removed from the Legislature, and he is going to make those decisions. He's going to decide how much Columbia River is going to get and which society is going to get what, and how much Cowichan-Malahat is going to get. It has nothing to do....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: They're gone, because that Western Canada Lottery Foundation was the body that set the objectives.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, not true.

MRS. WALLACE: There they are. The objectives of that.... That's the direction they went, and what you're doing now is putting it right into your hands. Whatever the minister considers to be in the public interest.... I would suggest that what that minister considers to be in the public interest and what the people of the province of British Columbia might consider to be in the public interest would be two different things.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Oh, did you want to say something? I don't know how we.... What's the procedure now that I've been recognized?

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to start ruling for the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The procedure would be to have leave. Would leave be given for the first member for Vancouver Centre to speak on second reading to Bill 43?

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I must associate myself with the first member for Victoria and the member for Cowichan-Malahat regarding the possibility of abuse associated with this new initiative by the government to really take over a very lucrative enterprise. I certainly can see the need to streamline the operation, handling and management of lotteries, but I don't feel this piece of legislation is any assurance that the abuse and the waste will not be even greater than what the government is trying to overcome.

[ Page 6630 ]

It talks about the schemes that the board of directors will now be able to embark upon to do with lotteries, and those are really not limited. The term "scheme" is really quite broad, and they may find some way to bring one-armed bandits in before we know it under this.

You know, it's not really a limiting section at all. It was suggested earlier that the government had a hidden agenda that might one day see gambling become legalized in the province, and everyone on that side of the House is protesting, saying that that's ridiculous and there's no way possible that that could happen because it would require an amendment to the Criminal Code, and they go on and on and on. But this piece of legislation could, in fact, be a very clever way of achieving the same objective on the provincial level, notwithstanding any federal situation or federal statutes.

Section 8 is really the section that concerns me. The section reads: "The net profits...."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Net profits. Section 8.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the Provincial Secretary rising on a point of order?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right. I think, you know, he apparently wants to discuss this section by section. If he wants to discuss it section by section, let's pass second reading, let's get leave, and go into it section by section. How about that?

MR. BARNES: I accept your criticism, and I won't make reference to the section. I'll just say that one of the most important objects in this whole statute, one of the principles that bothers me, is the idea that net proceeds will go to the Lottery Fund, to be administered by the Lottery Act. That's the part that concerns me the most. The Lottery Corporation is going to become the go-between. That's the problem. It reminds me of the days, you know, when we saw how effective the B.C. Petroleum Corporation was able to operate. You just take your cut.

You know what the miners wanted to do in the 1950s — the explorers of minerals and resources. They said, "Look, after expenses we'll be glad to pay a royalty. We have no objection to paying our fair share, but let us take care of out costs." Now this thing is talking about passing on the net. In other words, if there are going to be any profits after expenses, after administrative costs, after prize money, then we will turn that over to the lotteries people to disburse in the way in which they've democratically and fairly, without any political involvement....

But I'm concerned about there being no limit on what the government will need, what that board of directors will need, to operate. Why don't you have a section in there that says: "Notwithstanding anything we have said about net profits, there is going to be a maximum which we will use of the gross"? If you're going to get $100 million, let's say, we will take no more than United Appeal, for instance, takes to run its affairs. It goes out and raises several hundreds of millions of dollars, and it operates on anywhere between 5 percent and 10 percent for costs, for staff, for promotions and for all of those things.

Is the minister saying that they will keep the costs down on this thing? Or are we going to find the situation where about 75 percent of the thing is going out to operate? There is a loophole in this thing. This is a dangerous situation we're getting into, where the politicians are going to have an opportunity to determine what the cost will be and the opportunity to engage friends and all kinds of scenarios.

It's not something that we can support, because it doesn't appear as though the government is concerned about raising revenue for those worthy causes that the lotteries were brought in place in the first place for. If they did, then they would amend this thing to put some restraint on themselves, the same as they have restrained everybody else, like the various school boards in this province. They should restrain this act. This is a dangerous piece of legislation. I am suggesting that unless there are guidelines drawn in legislation to protect those funds, we're going to have problems in the future. I certainly would be opposed to it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In closing debate, I just want to suggest that the member for Cowichan seems to be a little confused about the consequential amendment to section 12 of the act. Essentially all it's doing is removing the language which included the Western Canada Lottery Foundation in the Lottery Act and also allowing us to have some flexibility on expenditures of lottery funds. It goes on to remove the Western Canada Lottery Foundation, which, incidentally, had no jurisdiction whatsoever as to the expenditure of funds within British Columbia or any other province.

Maybe I shouldn't make the point; she's not that interested in hearing it. But anyway, adding "the minister considers to be in the public interest" allows, of course, flexibility beyond the realm of recreational or cultural heritage of the province.

The member for Vancouver Centre raises the issue of the potential costs and how the costs could probably overcome the potential of a profit of the corporation. I want to say that we have no criteria as to the operating costs of our Lottery Corporation, because it's been in place for such a short period of time. It was only established on April 1 of this year. We won't be able to measure its operating costs vis-à-vis other lottery corporations in this country or elsewhere until we've been functioning for at least a year. But we'll know then about our operating costs, and I want to assure you that I'm one who believes in having the minimum amount of operating costs in place.

Our distribution costs. We know full well that we were the most cost-effective distributors of lottery product in this country. There was no other lottery corporation in this country that had such an efficient and cost-effective lottery distribution system as we had in British Columbia.

We used the auspices of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation to do that distribution, which many other organizations were not prepared to do because of the fact they were fearful of losing their autonomy. But we thought that it was important that we have the most efficient and cost-effective distribution system in the country.

On the issue of the member being concerned about the board of directors and the potential costs of the board of directors, I want to say that really the board of directors is very small. The chairman of the board, who happens to be the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, receives no salary for acting as the chairman of the board.

The secretary of the corporation also serves at no fee. So it's the most cost-effective board of directors of any corporation in the world, in the whole world.

[ Page 6631 ]

Mr. Speaker, with those few words, I take great pleasure in moving second reading.

Motion approved on division.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forthwith?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you want it forthwith? No? I got a signal from across the way, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Vancouver Centre had suggested that he was prepared to discuss the thing section by section. I asked him if he was prepared to do it very shortly after the second reading. He indicated very clearly that was the direction he wanted it to go. So I put the question forthwith.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Your motion is that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MR. HOWARD: He needs leave to do that; he doesn't have it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 43, Lottery Corporation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply: Mrs. Johnston in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 57: minister's office, $179,377.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, it seems to me that the order of business was such that the opposition was ready to debate the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith's) bills before we went into Committee of Supply without any notice to us. It seems to me inappropriate for us to be sitting at this time. I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: It would appear that this is not a subject for a point of order. The order of business is not for the committee. Therefore I am not allowing the point of order.

Interjection.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The minister was recognized. You cannot make a motion on the point of order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Madam Chairman, it is a privilege to speak to these estimates: 1985-86 will be my second full year as Minister of Municipal Affairs; 1984-85 was a year of significant accomplishments, and I look forward to even bigger and better things in the new fiscal year.

[5:00]

My ministry continues to provide a full range of services to its major client group, local government in British Columbia. Our client base includes 144 municipalities, 28 regional districts and 322 improvement districts. For these hundreds of units we provide a wide variety of administrative services, information and advice, grants, and regulatory approvals. This extensive range of services is provided by a dedicated and efficient staff. For 1985-86 the ministry will have an FTE level of 94. Although this represents a measurable decline from the level two years ago, both the quantity and the quality of ministry services remain high.

Madam Chairman, Municipal Affairs is not a stagnant organization. I have recently commissioned a team of consultants to review the ministry's structure and performance. The goal of the consultants will be to ascertain whether the ministry is fulfilling its statutory mandate in the most effective and efficient manner possible. I can assure this House that ministry staff look upon this management review in a very positive manner. We are all on the lookout for opportunities to improve our performance.

The existing structure on programs of the ministry are described in our ministry annual reports, the most recent of which covers the 1983 calendar year. I expect to table the 1984 annual report in the very near future.

Just as the ministry's structure and performance are under review, so are its programs changing. Earlier this year I was proud to introduce the provincial-municipal partnership program. This program not only represents an exciting opportunity for stimulating economic development at the local level but it also represents a striking innovation in the type of services provided by this ministry to local government.

As of today, Madam Chairman, 100 municipalities have expressed an interest in the program. Those municipalities represent over 96 percent of the total provincial population. Fourteen communities have already signed the partnership agreement, which provides for property tax relief as well as a variety of other economic development incentives. Over 30 municipalities have made commitments, passed resolutions, to sign partnership agreements and are awaiting the scheduling of signing ceremonies.

During my relatively brief tenure as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I've also been proud of the advances my ministry has made in the area of land use planning and regulation. Increased emphasis has been placed on advice and deregulation, particularly in the case of regional districts. Since I expect to introduce further land use planning and regulation reform measures in the near future, I will say no more on this topic for the present.

As hon. members know, more than 95 cents out of every dollar in the ministry's budget is in the revenue-sharing fund. I'm particularly pleased about the three recent developments in the revenue-sharing. Firstly, I am happy that we have managed to maintain an unconditional grants level of $90 million annually through some tough economic years, and we are poised to increase this amount as the economy rebuilds. Secondly, I am encouraged that we have managed to achieve a reasonable degree of control over the sewer and water funding components of the revenue-sharing fund. Thirdly, I am confident that the introduction of the stabilization mechanism for revenue-sharing will provide us with even better control over the future growth of unconditional grants. Since this topic is also a legislative item, Madam Chairman, I will say no more about it.

[ Page 6632 ]

At this time I would like to introduce my deputy minister, Mr. John Taylor, and also our director of central services, Mr. Bill Bedford.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, it's a great pleasure to stand up in this particular part of the session to respond and pass some general comments initially about Municipal Affairs and the state of municipal affairs in British Columbia as we see it today.

Madam Chairman, it's our view that municipal government in British Columbia is in real serious trouble. In our view there has been, over the last few years, benign neglect of the basic problems that are facing municipalities today. I don't think that the minister and the government he is associated with have really come to terms with the financial, the infrastructure, the costing, the budget problems and the general health and state of well-being of municipalities today. I don't think this government recognizes those problems.

This government is — at least, I suppose — mouthing platitudes about working with local government on economic recovery. It has developed these glossy packages on municipal partnership with senior government, and it has developed a number of pieces of legislation to go along with those glossy pieces of information currently being shared with local government. But you know, I think it's close to two years ago that I stood in this chamber, along with some of my colleagues, and called for meaningful partnership with local government in terms of directing economic recovery in the province of British Columbia.

This same minister didn't pay any attention to that concept. I don't think he heard what I was saying at all. I tabled some basic kinds of programs that could be introduced. I talked about some of the things that are happening in other jurisdictions, and really what it was based upon was a mutual respect and understanding of each other's problems. I said local government can be the catalyst, the major partner of economic recovery in the province of British Columbia, but it has to be based on mutual respect and understanding — particularly understanding — of the unique problems that local governments face today.

For a while it seemed that those ideas I suggested.... Local government was ready, even at the UBCM. At the first UBCM meeting I attended as the Municipal Affairs debate leader, virtually all the leaders of local government were saying: "Look, we can help you, but don't curtail our operations or our ability to manage our own affairs. Don't make inroads into our decision-making process. Don't centralize authority." Well, we have had constant centralization by this government. We've seen it in the various pieces of legislation that have been before us over the last few years. I suppose in this session it's culminated with the Islands Trust piece of legislation, which basically has taken over the operation of a very important part of local government in this province.

It's symbolic, Madam Chairman, of this government's basic approach to local government. On the other hand, however, we have them mouthing these platitudes that they want to be partners with them. I said a number of years ago, and I'll say it again today, that any programs that you develop must be developed in concert with local government. They must be part of the development process. We haven't had that. We're still waiting for that. We constantly see local government having to react to this government's edicts, or their coming to a meeting and saying: "This is the way it is. This is how we view partnership; take it or leave it."

Now we have this great program, this program that the minister even complained about that the media was not giving him enough attention for it, and he was calling on the advertisers to put pressure on the local press because he wasn't getting enough attention for his programs.... Well, we all know why he wasn't getting attention for his programs: because local government really was not very excited about this partnership deal. They were not excited at all; they're still not excited. If I heard correctly, the minister's saying he's had 14 sign. Did I hear correctly? Boy, there's great excitement out there, that's for sure — great excitement. No wonder the minister complains and asks the advertisers and newspapers to put on the pressure so he can get more attention for his partnership program. It ain't going to fly, basically, because tax relief and all those ingredients that he thinks are important to municipalities in terms of their stability and their future.... That's not the way to go.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister, and I've said it many times in this House, that if you want to work with local government, start at square one. Develop the programs in concert with local government. Treat them with respect. Treat them as true partners and recognize that they have rights, responsibilities and abilities to manage their own affairs; that they know their own environments, their own economic situations, their own regions the best. If you want the best from them, then you develop the programs with them. However, unfortunately, that approach has fallen on deaf ears.

The UBCM is still asking for this government to talk about the financing of local government services. They are still asking the government to talk about the problems of certain costs for local government; still asking about looking at progressive tax systems that could be utilized for municipal purposes. They are still asking for some real discussion of the property tax dilemma.

Madam Chairman, in our estimation local government is not understood by this government. I want to suggest today for this minister a way to go in terms of rebuilding the health of our communities and the health of our municipalities in the province of British Columbia. I started off by saying that municipalities, their infrastructure, sewers, roads, their water supplies, the various things that go into making those communities healthy, are in trouble. We've had all sorts of programs cut back and formulas reversed and all we get so far from this government is tax relief programs that are going to ensure that municipalities lose even more money and ensure that municipalities fight among each other.

The health and well-being of British Columbia, in our estimation, depends on services like roads, sewers, water-supply networks, schools and transit systems — the basic, fundamental infrastructure in the province of British Columbia. These systems are essential to the vitality of British Columbia and British Columbia's economy. Indeed, a direct relationship exists between the condition of our urban or rural or village or town infrastructure and the economic health of our urban areas, and, in turn, the economic health of our province.

Over the last few years a variety of circumstances, which I believe have been compounded by this government's attitude towards local government, have combined to create problems for municipal infrastructure, not only throughout British Columbia but obviously throughout Canada. But we have a role to play in looking at those basic problems. Some of those circumstances obviously have been recessionary budget pressures, and we recognize that: inflation and the

[ Page 6633 ]

growing municipal revenue gap — many municipalities, as we all know, every year are getting behind in collecting taxes — provincial and federal cutbacks, erosion of the municipal tax base, and exhaustion of the basic infrastructure of local government, the nuts and bolts.

[5:15]

Many municipalities today are getting to the point where they are going to have to rebuild many parts of their infrastructure. That's what we should be looking at. That's what we should be applying our revenues to, in a global sense and in a fair sense. At the moment, the only program we have is for tax relief for those municipalities who feel they can afford to do it; and those municipalities which are poorer municipalities or are not in a position to do it cannot participate. It's discriminatory. I think we need a fair rebuilding and approach to local government.

Now in times of restraint, times of government austerity and cutting back, it's been tempting for municipalities to live off — if you will — prior generations' expenditures, and to postpone or neglect required maintenance and replacement programs. I suggest, as I've done many times in this House, that this government is participating in that putting off of necessary replacement programs. You've only got to take a look around and at the letters that come in, not only to me but I'm sure to the minister, from municipalities saying: "We've got to start to replace some of the basic infrastructure in the province of British Columbia, or some of these things are going to come to a grinding halt."

Neglecting proper maintenance can lead to serious and costly problems in future years. We've only got the American system to look at. American municipalities, which have put off and put off.... Governments, in their wisdom, have neglected to maintain the basic infrastructure, and the taxpayer today in the United States faces billions and billions of dollars in increased taxes to maintain the basic urban infrastructure or town structure or village structure. At our peril, we put off this basic maintenance of infrastructure. I cannot overemphasize that, and no matter what government is in place — and today currently we have the Social Credit government of the province of British Columbia — no government can ignore that basic premise that the roots of a province are local government. If that is not healthy and is not maintained properly, then it affects the whole system. Neglecting proper maintenance can lead to serious and costly problems in the future years as a result of physical failure and various other components that we are all aware of in local government.

It's our contention that given this absolutely critical relationship between the condition of urban infrastructure and our city's economic health, neglected infrastructure jeopardizes the provincial economy. Put a plug in here. Too many people underestimate the importance of local government or municipal affairs, and it's time that that changed. Its priority has to be raised in the scheme of things, particularly when we say that that basic infrastructure and the health of those communities.... If they are not healthy, it affects and jeopardizes the provincial economy.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. BARNES: I was listening with great interest....

AN HON. MEMBER: You were not.

MR. BARNES: ...in between my reading of the Home Owner Grant Act. I certainly would like to hear the member as he develops...

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister?

MR. BARNES: One day soon.

...his theme about the centralization of government, the confiscation of power from municipalities and those awesome initiatives by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If I may, I would like to permit the member to continue.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you to my colleague.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Well, you owe him one for that.

MR. BLENCOE: We shouldn't laugh about this, Madam Chairman, because I think we all really deep down agree that what I'm saying today, in terms of the health of our local government, is indeed critical. If we can all get our sights on that particular issue, and start to come to terms with it in terms of a focus, I think we're all going to be much better off in British Columbia.

Madam Chairman, recognizing these problems, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities established a task force on infrastructure and conducted a major survey of Canadian infrastructure conditions in 1984. Following this initiative, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities extended the survey to complete a major survey on the current status of infrastructure in B.C. in March 1985. I won't go into all the details, because they are extensive, but I would encourage all members, particularly government members, to take a look at the review by the UBCM in the April 1985 edition of the UBCM News. It really does highlight the seriousness of this particular issue.

They go through the major areas of infrastructure that are in trouble in British Columbia — roads, sidewalks, storm sewers, water distribution systems, bridges deteriorating. The UBCM indicates that roads are the first budget priority. The infrastructure survey is a good one. I think the bottom line is basically that there has to be provincial leadership in dealing with this particular issue. Again, I re-emphasize, if municipalities and local government and the roots of our province are not in healthy shape, the general provincial economy is jeopardized.

The results of both the national and the provincial survey provide an invaluable amount of information on the real priorities of local government. These are the real priorities of local government — not tax relief, not giving away valuable tax dollars out of the back door for maybe jobs....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson, I understand the use of visual aids and so on is prohibited in the House. The member is holding up charts and diagrams which he is showing us, and I wish you would call him to order.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you. The point of order is well taken. I'm not aware of what it is that the member is holding up. Would you please adhere to the rules, Mr. Member.

MR. BLENCOE: I can't believe that those — I was going to say learned people across the way — government members would have trouble with this good publication from the

[ Page 6634 ]

UBCM. Suffice to say, Madam Chairman, that I urge all members to look at this, because it's very important. I have to suggest — with respect — that the current provincial government is ignoring the signs, the alarms.

The results, Madam Chairman, of both the national and provincial surveys indicate, I feel — and I reiterate again — the real priorities of local government. Not some potential, some illusory kind of partnership program in which in the scale of things, tax relief is only a minor component in attracting new industry and new jobs into British Columbia. Nationally, the survey identified a significant municipal infrastructure problem throughout Canada. It's not just British Columbia, but British Columbia is in particular problems in certain key areas. Such essential ingredients as roads and sidewalks, bridges and sewers are in the poorest condition and are deteriorating rather than improving. The costs of bringing the most seriously deteriorated infrastructure to acceptable levels are high, and we recognize that, but again we reiterate that a dollar invested today is $10 saved tomorrow. In cities with populations greater than 100,000, the costs are estimated to be $680 per capita.

In the study, the trends in British Columbia closely paralleled the nationwide data, with some exceptions that I won't refer to, or won't hold it up; but I will refer to the contents.

Roads are a higher priority than in the rest of Canada — 50 percent versus 30 percent. Smaller municipalities generally have the highest per capita infrastructure needs, especially in the areas of roads, water distribution and sewage collection systems. The infrastructure in B.C. communities was surprisingly older than the reported ages in the national survey. For example, in the national survey the reported ages of roads, sidewalks and bridges were 18, 13 and 18 years respectively; in British Columbia, the corresponding ages were reported as 27, 26 and 32 years. Total infrastructure requirements in British Columbia are lower than the national — $586 per capita versus $598 per capita. According to the statistics, roads represent a greater proportion of per capita costs than nationally, Both the provincial....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member is offering some very interesting statistics, but I would ask that you please confine your remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the minister on vote 57.

[5:30]

MR. BLENCOE: With respect, Madam Chairman, if the health of the infrastructure and the general well-being of local government is not in the interests of this minister and within his purview, I don't know what is. I am talking about the fundamental nuts and bolts of local government which.... If we don't come to terms with them, we're always going to be in serious trouble. This is fundamental to local government, and we've got to come to terms with it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that if the Municipal Affairs Committee of this House got together in a bipartisan.... All of us together, we might....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't really know if it's a point of order legitimately, but he keeps calling you Madam Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: When did that change?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: About five minutes ago, if the member hadn't noticed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. However, the Chair would like to point out to the second member for Victoria that you do not debate a rule with the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm just trying to point out that what I'm talking about I think is fundamental. I know from all my discussions and travels over the last few months, meeting with mayors and councils and municipal associations, that these are the issues concerning local government.

I just want to carry on and talk a little bit more about the surveys. I really am serious, Mr. Chairman, that if we can get that Municipal Affairs Committee of this Legislature together some time — we haven't met; we never meet — we might be able to start to tackle some of these problems in a problem-solving, fact-finding kind of way. Unfortunately that doesn't happen. Both the provincial and national surveys have identified the same impediments, the same problems, the same blockages to alleviating infrastructure problems. They are inadequate funding, prolonged public involvement and political inaction; and in smaller communities the lack of staff is considered a serious impediment. On the basis of the per capita cost identified by the provincial survey, the total funding required to upgrade the six main infrastructure items in B.C. amounts to over $1 billion.

At long last somebody is starting to come to terms with the costs of rebuilding local government in the province of British Columbia. We've got some dollars. Now we've got to have the leadership and the will to recognize that if that infrastructure is not maintained and put back in shape, you can give all the tax reliefs you want, but if you aren't going to have those municipalities healthy.... That's what industry looks for. They look to see that a community is healthy in a number of other ways — and I've outlined those before in other debates, so I won't go into it today.

If I can believe all the studies that I've made, all the reading that I've done and all the discussions that I've had with people involved in local government — and industry — they want to know about the basic infrastructure health of communities. Mr. Chairman, British Columbia is in sad shape. We've got to tackle that. "Compared to current municipal budgets that require $586 per capita to upgrade essential services...if spread over ten years it would require an increase in annual public works projects of approximately 28 percent." This represents a 7 percent increase in total municipal budgets.

The national survey also identified the dangers to our economy if the backlog of maintenance and repair infrastructure is allowed to grow. The alarm bells are being rung, and they've been rung for a number of years. One economic loss overlooked by the provincial government is the loss resulting from the current high unemployment in British Columbia. Highly labour-intensive works on urban infrastructure could not only usefully employ many people, but at the same time reconstruct our essential infrastructure.

Here is an idea: instead of perhaps looking for the latest Socred megaproject that's something totally new, here we have the basic needs of our municipality outlined. You have to accept the premise that if these communities are not maintained properly, then everything else you do is on quicksand. It's on shaky ground. Now this government has spent a lot of money on some of its megaprojects over the last few years.

[ Page 6635 ]

I'm not going to go into debating that, but what I'm suggesting is that putting in the basic infrastructure — maintaining the basic health and state of our municipalities, Mr. Chairman — should be the number one priority in the province of British Columbia today, because if those communities aren't healthy, if people in those communities do not have a safe or a well-maintained environment, then everything else that you do is on quicksand.

Highly labour-intensive works on urban infrastructure; essential, necessary projects that need to be carried out in the province of British Columbia; investment for the future....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You've been really watching for that, haven't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes that the member did not have the full 30 minutes in his first opening statement, and possibly at this point he may continue for a further 15 minutes without being interrupted.

MR. BLENCOE: That's very good of you, and I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the member had his full 30 minutes. Don't the rules allow someone else to stand and join the debate, or must one member continue to preach to us all day?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes that possibly the Chair was in error in calling time on the member's opening statement. Under the standing orders a member is entitled to an opening statement of 30 minutes. He was called to order after 15 minutes of his opening statement. That was an error of the Chair, and it is the prerogative of the Chair to allow him the 30 minutes at this time without intervention.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm accommodating. If the minister wishes to say a few words.... You want to rise?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has recognized the second member for Victoria on his opening statement — unless the minister is rising on a point of order.

MR. BLENCOE: I will continue and I will finish on this particular theme of investment. I really wish to emphasize again how important it is to municipal leaders across the province of British Columbia. The minister knows that. I see this municipal infrastructure rebuilding program as an investment. It is an investment in the future and in the health of our communities. Every single community should be able to participate in rebuilding and bringing themselves back to the standards they require to be attractive for the very thing the minister suggests he wants in terms of trying to attract new industry in the province of British Columbia.

You see, I think you've got your priorities a little screwed up, a little reversed. Turn them around a little bit. Get those municipalities in good shape — the very things I've been talking about — then you'll start to get the industrialists coming to British Columbia. Get the social amenities in good shape. Get the recreational amenities in good shape. Get the schools in good shape. Get the universities in good shape. Get those very essential components of a healthy province and healthy communities in shape, and then you'll start to get somewhere.

But without those things in place, and with the feeling elsewhere that they are in trouble in British Columbia, people are going to stay away. The captains of industry are going to stay away. I suggest that the fundamental ingredient of attracting those captains of industry is healthy municipalities in terms of infrastructure. Put them in place, and you create thousands of new jobs in British Columbia.

This type of long-term investment in the basic urban infrastructure is completely different than the back-door tax discounts that have been promoted by the current provincial government. It's upfront, positive, equal sharing, rather than creating discriminatory kind of systems where certain municipalities will be able to participate in discount wars among themselves, discriminating against entrepreneurs that have tried to weather this government and this recession. The new touch-down industries that come in are going to get all the so-called tax relief, and those indigenous entrepreneurs in British Columbia are going to get virtually nothing.

This is positive, upfront investment in British Columbia. And you know what? We'll rebuild our municipalities, and we'll create thousands of jobs. I'm going to suggest how we can do this, because someone will say: "Where are the dollars?"

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Tomorrow.

MR. BLENCOE: I am prepared to adjourn and leave the ultimate until tomorrow.

What is required is a commitment by the provincial government to articulate some provincial goals, to show some leadership and to bring together local governments and the federal government, given that this is the FCM, and all the Canadian municipalities have got together and set up their objectives. We in British Columbia have to have long-term goals for the future of our municipalities and have to bring in the federal government to launch in British Columbia a major long-term municipal megaproject, to use the lingo of this government — it's the only thing that seems to attract them — to improve the basic infrastructure in every British Columbian municipality. This is what the minister should be tackling — and every mayor in the province of British Columbia.

Unlike this government's current projects which concentrate on job creation in small isolated pockets, a program to rehabilitate urban infrastructure, Mr. Chairman, would distribute jobs throughout the province. The benefits would be shared across the province in every single community, and unlike our current projects — Socred projects — the priorities would be established at the local level. That's the difference. The priorities would be established at the local level, not from the top down but from the grass roots up. They know best. They know what they need. They know where the jobs are. They know the dollars that are required. Instead of developing, in the words, I think, of my colleague from Vancouver East, a turkey that won't fly, in terms of this partnership deal, let's get down and develop the priorities and the jobs at the local level.

[5:45]

We need a massive municipal infrastructure rebuilding program in the province of British Columbia. We need to develop an agreement with the federal government, because the FCM now has been successful with the federal government. We need to develop a high-priority agreement for cost-

[ Page 6636 ]

sharing, for rebuilding our municipalities in British Columbia. We know the costs. We know where the jobs can be created. We know we can create health in those communities again if we have goals and leadership from this ministry. It's a combination of local priorities, local decision-making and provincial leadership. That's real partnership, and that's how we'll get this province off the ground again: at the local level. It requires real consultation and cooperation by the three levels of government. That's our challenge, that's the goal, and it can be done.

Supposedly — I'm not sure with this government — we have agreements with the federal government on forestry and other areas. Why not establish a federal-provincial-municipal agreement in British Columbia to create the biggest job creation program we've ever seen in the history of this province, rebuilding our communities from the roots up? That's what we should be doing. That's what the goal should be, not some turkey that won't fly in terms of tax relief out the back door, giving away money that they don't have. That's the objective, and that will create jobs in British Columbia. However, it requires provincial leadership; it requires consultation and cooperation by three levels of government; and it recognizes the current strengths of our local economies and builds upon them.

There has to be a recognition, not only by this minister but by the entire government, that British Columbia is made up of distinct regions with particular needs, aspirations and regional economies, and with particular regional municipal needs. Those people at the local level know those regions; they know their economies. They know that if they're given the ability to redirect those regions and those economies, they will be in the forefront of recovery in the province of British Columbia. But it requires a cooperative and a consultative provincial government, Mr. Chairman, and it requires a recognition that the goal in British Columbia is the rebuilding, in a fair and equitable way, of the municipal infrastructure.

Thousands and thousands of jobs could be created if we had the provincial leadership to develop an agreement between ourselves and the federal government. We could take the federal study and the UBCM study and say: "Here, let's get those municipalities back in shape again. We'll create the jobs." It would be the finest project we've ever seen in a long time. It will rebuild the roots of our province, and it will make those communities attractive to the captains of industry that this government says it wishes to attract. We have to recognize in true partnership the strengths of our local economies and our regions.

Mr. Chairman, I met with the Fort St. John council. It was supposed to be a half-hour meeting, but instead we had a meeting for two hours and brainstormed about regional economies — value-added, petrochemical industry. We discussed what we could be doing in real cooperation and consultation with a government that respects local government. A half-hour meeting turned into two hours of brainstorming with a council.... Some of those members, I have to say, were not necessarily initially responsive to us in the New Democratic Party. But after two hours we had a marvellous time in terms of looking at how that region could re-establish itself. Unless we have some goals and leadership from this government, then it's going to be next year, when there's a change in government and there's a government in place that has respect and believes in consultation, conciliation and working with local government on this very project that I've outlined today.

Mr. Chairman I move that the committee now rise....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the motion, the Chair would like to make an observation with respect to standing order 61(2). It is headed "Relevancy" and says: "Speeches in the Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." To the present time the Chair has had some difficulty in ascertaining strict relevance in the debate that has taken place on vote 57.

MR. BLENCOE: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.