[ Page 8503 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Post-secondary education. Mr. Rose — 8504

Political statements by judiciary. Mr. Reynolds — 8504

Quesnel sexual assault case. Mr. Lauk — 8504

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

Gasoline prices. Mr. D'Arcy — 8505

Ministerial Statement

Free trade negotiations. Hon. Mr. McGeer — 8506

Mr. Howard

Presenting Petitions — 8506

Oral Questions

Nuclear accidents. Hon. Mr. Gardom replies — 8507

Committee of Supply:

Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 65: minister's office — 8507

Mr. Hanson

Mr. MacWilliam

Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Ree

Mr. Reid

Mr. Williams

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Howard

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

Mr. D'Arcy

Tabling Documents — 8528

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to welcome to the floor of the Legislature, with your concurrence, sir, Hugh G. Ferguson. Hugh Ferguson is proceeding to retire from the public service of the province of British Columbia after serving with the government of B.C. for 37 years. Mr. Ferguson is a native of Victoria who served with distinction in the RCAF during the Second World War. He joined the British Columbia Department of Finance, as it was then called, in 1949 after graduating from the University of British Columbia with a bachelor of commerce degree. Over the years Hugh Ferguson has worked in a variety of positions with the ministry, and since 1982 has held the position of assistant deputy minister for the provincial treasury. He retired from that post a few days ago, but happily will remain with the ministry for several months yet in a special consultancy role.

He has served with four Premiers and eight Ministers of Finance, and he probably feels that's enough. Mr. Ferguson and his wife June, who is in the gallery today, have two daughters, one son and three grandchildren. Hugh Ferguson is truly one of the most dedicated and outstanding public servants I have had the pleasure to know and work with during my time in public life. Throughout his career he has shown a dedication to all the people of British Columbia. He stands as an excellent example to those who follow after him in the public service. Would the House please welcome him.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say just a few words to Hugh Ferguson. I might ask the other Hugh what he had in mind as to who would be the next Minister of Finance, but I won't at this time.

Mr. Ferguson and I graduated from UBC on the same day. He joined the Department of Finance, and I went on the same day to attend my very first public meeting as a candidate for the CCF in Ganges. Our paths went separately. When I was first elected in 1963 I very soon came to know him as one of the top people in the Department of Finance, and of course got to know the deputy as well. In those days, Mr. Speaker, and for some time afterwards, people rose in the various departments in part because of their dedication and the way in which they worked on behalf of the public, rather than because of the political party that they supported or the political whims of people who appointed them. It was that way then, and still is to some extent.

With the minister, I certainly want to wish Hugh Ferguson all the best in his "retirement" — in quotes, because I understand he will still be making contributions to the public, working with the Ministry of Finance from time to time. I wish him all the best, and a long period of retirement.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in 1919 a remarkable group of organizations got together to form an umbrella organization called the Provincial Council of Women. The social services committee was very pleased to receive a brief from the Provincial Council of Women today, and I'd like to ask the House to welcome their newly elected president, Mrs. Helen Tokarek, members of the provincial council executive and some of their members not on the executive, who are in the gallery.

I am also pleased to ask the House to welcome some legislative interns from Ontario. I know that all members, having been served so well by our own legislative interns over the years, will welcome the Ontario representatives and wish for them a very enjoyable, educational and inspirational visit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's my pleasure today to introduce Chief Stan Dixon of the Sechelt band and four elected council members. I ask the House to join me in the welcome.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, a group of members from the Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative met this noon hour with the Social Credit caucus. I'd ask the House to join me and make welcome to our precincts Alma McGauley of Castlegar, Neil Coen, Dennis Guest and Doreen Coen of Vancouver, Alice Hayman from Richmond, Mary Timmons from Burnaby, and Alan Danesh and George Buvyer from Victoria.

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

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: Seated on the floor of the House today is a person who has been seated in the House for almost 14 years. My colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), was born in Louisiana in 1929. He lived in Oregon and became a Canadian citizen in 1962. He has a lengthy, distinguished record in amateur sports, both in the United States and in Canada. He was all-city and state football and basketball champion, a high-jump champion in high school, an NCAA high-jump champion and member of the all-American track and field team in 1952. He was a member of the United States Olympic team in 1952, and achieved all-time high-jump best of 6 feet 9½ inches. At the time, the world record was just 6 feet 11 inches. In the United States army, he was a distinguished member of the teams in basketball, football and track.

In British Columbia, he continued his senior basketball activities and entered the national playoffs from Vancouver in 1962 with the Harlem Nocturnes team. In coaching he was assistant coach to Frank Gnup of the University of British Columbia Thunderbirds, and head coach of junior Big Four league teams as well. In the National Football League he was with the Green Bay Packers in 1956, and in 1957 joined the B.C. Lions in their third year of playing football in Vancouver and B.C.

As a result of an injury he was off for a while, and then went to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and returned to B.C. In 1962, '63 and '64. He was a Grey Cup finalist in 1963 against Hamilton in Vancouver and a Grey Cup champion in 1964 against Hamilton in Toronto. He was chosen outstanding athlete in 1979 by his alma mater, the University of Oregon, for an NCAA silver anniversary award. He received his education in the United States at the University of Oregon, and at the University of British Columbia.

He has had a distinguished record as a professional social worker and has served on two human rights organizations. His political record all members of the House know. He was a founding member of the Black Historical Society of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow in Vancouver, my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre will be inducted into the

[ Page 8504 ]

Hall of Fame, together with the Grey Cup champions of 1964.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of my colleague the hon. first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), may we extend every best wish to a great former athlete.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MR. ROSE: I have a question I'd like to dedicate to the Minister of Post-Secondary Education. The Chief Justice of the supreme court recently issued a solemn warning regarding the underfunding of post-secondary education. Since B.C. has perhaps the lowest participation rates in terms of its students going on, except for Newfoundland, I want to know whether the government has considered restoring the funding that's been chopped away from education.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, part of the question is in order. It clearly contains much argument and debate.

HON. R. FRASER: A very interesting question — that we would have a political statement by a judge, especially when he's sitting on the stage with the man that put the whole country in debt so far that there's not much money left for social services like universities and education. The fact is that this province is doing very well. The hard work that we did in the last couple of years has created the Excellence in Education fund that is now going into place. The $600 million that will go into the budgets in the next three years will go a long way to restoring and enhancing the university system we have in British Columbia.

We talk about institutions, and we look back at UBC, which almost closed in the Depression, and look at it now. People can relive, survive, endure, enhance and do all kinds of things with ingenuity and hope. It's not just throwing money that we're talking about with British Columbians; it's ingenuity, self-reliance and all those good things.

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

MR. ROSE: I think the minister is throwing more than money at this House. That's not unusual for him.

I wonder if the minister is concerned that B.C. Is now importing about 30 percent of its trained professionals, and if he is, what steps does he intend to take to reverse this trend?

HON. R. FRASER: We will never stop importing people who will make a contribution to this province, no matter what they do.

MR. ROSE: I agree with the minister on that one, but we should also make sure that our own students have opportunities in British Columbia. Right now we're the only province making money out of EPF. Between the federal funds and student fees, that's where all the post-secondary education is financed. Please don't listen to the Minister of Finance; he's trying to prompt you into an incorrect answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There may have been a question there. The Chair was unable to discern one, if the minister was.

HON. R. FRASER: Talk about EPF! Mr. Speaker, as you know, it was again the federal government that unilaterally cut the money for health care, which now causes all the provinces across the land unanimously to disagree with the federal position.

Now when you put health care and education together, Mr. Speaker, this province pays for 55 percent of the total package, leaving only 45 percent for the federal or approximately that much. We're doing the job out here, Mr. Member, we're doing it fine.

MR. ROSE: My final question. I hope the province will take the advice of this supreme court justice and restore the funds. But in the meantime, a related question.

What has the minister been able to do to the universities' policies of limiting enrolment for those people bound for university, people receiving partial training in community colleges? Is he aware of how this discriminates against rural youngsters, and what does he intend to do about it?

HON. R. FRASER: There were two things I want to respond to. Firstly, I recall quite clearly that Thomas Berger was asked to resign from the bench when he made a political statement. I wonder if anybody is going to ask for this one.

Secondly, when we get to the business of transferring from colleges to university or whatever, we're going to make sure there is a balanced program across the whole province so that every student, no matter from whence they come, will have a shot at post-secondary.

POLITICAL STATEMENTS BY JUDICIARY

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General which is related to the minister's statement. At one time Mr. Justice Berger was forced to resign his seat because of what were considered political statements at the time. I wonder if the Attorney-General has reviewed the statements of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and asked the government of Canada to tell that Chief Justice to keep his nose out of politics, and whether he should look at his own job and look at the fact that he should resign if he wants to get involved in politics.

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no, I haven't. But the Chief Justice of Canada and all judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are subject to the Judicial Council of Canada, and the Chief Justice of Canada, when he came here and spoke at the University of British Columbia at a convocation address, spoke on the subject of education. That would be a matter that I don't think would require comment from me or provincial cabinet ministers. I think the Chief Justice of Canada can look after himself.

QUESNEL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

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

To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in estimates the Attorney-General said he would consider an inquiry into the conduct of Crown counsel in a recent sexual

[ Page 8505 ]

assault case in Quesnel. Has the Attorney-General decided to call for such an inquiry?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I have not. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the allegations that were made in my estimates yesterday about Crown counsel in this case.... I'm speaking about the case of Joyal, Larson, Reimer and Lorntsen, all of whom were charged with assault arising out of an incident in Quesnel in September 1985, and I just should perhaps put the circumstances in perspective, because a number of allegations were made yesterday, and they were dealt with before different courts.

Two of them pleaded guilty in supreme court to assault — that is, Lorntsen and Reimer — and they were given one year each. The other two — Joyal and Larson — pleaded guilty before a provincial court judge to assault. One was given a conditional discharge and community work, and the other was given a suspended sentence and community work.

Of course, when you hear those facts you might think that there were inequalities, but you know, a Crown counsel involved in a case like this or a judge trying a case like this has to take into account in the criminal justice system the very different strengths of the evidence against one accused or against another accused. In this case the complainant herself in the preliminary hearing testified that some of the acts were consensual — that she had consented to some of the acts with one of the accused. It was also impossible for this person to identify several other accused. One accused was identified. One of the accused who was dealt with had a previous history, and others had none.

So what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that all these matters were carefully considered by Crown counsel — considered by them fairly and balanced by them fairly, and in the interest of justice they dealt with them as the evidence and as their circumstances warranted.

I will at some other stage make a comment as well against the allegations that the second member for Vancouver Centre made against the judge, because they were serious allegations. I didn't mean, by discussing the fact that the judge had decided to take medical leave, to suggest in any way that those allegations were accepted. Those allegations, it turns out, are not correct. I will respond in some detail to those, because I feel that allegations of that kind made against a sitting judge at any level should be responded to.

MR. LAUK: I read the transcripts too, Mr. Speaker, and I do not characterize it in the same way as the Attorney-General does. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that this case was properly investigated and prosecuted by the Crown?

HON. MR. SMITH: Absolutely.

MR. LAUK: I take it then that there will be no further inquiries of the Attorney-General's office?

HON. MR. SMITH: I said that I would make a statement about the allegations that he made about a presiding judge of the Provincial Court. But there will be no further inquiry. I've made a thorough inquiry, as has my deputy, and I'm satisfied that these matters were proceeded with fairly and properly. Two of the accused who received a jail sentence have both appealed their sentences and later this week their appeals are going to be heard, so I am very reluctant to canvass the facts or discuss inquiries. But I can tell you that the appeal is being resisted. The Crown counsel have taken a proper and careful view in each of these cases, based on the strength of the case and the circumstances of the accused.

MR. LAUK: Does the Attorney-General feel that a sentence of one year for a violent assault — a violent rape — and a suspended sentence and conditional discharge in two other cases is a satisfactory way to proceed under the Code under this kind of circumstance?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the two members who are conducting debate are aware of the rules that bind this type of debate. I would caution members that at this time, in view of the fact that it has been stated that the matter is under appeal, further discussion would not be in order.

MR. LAUK: If the Attorney-General advises that he regards it as sub judice, I'll take the matter up after the appeal.

QUEEST BEACH HOLDINGS LTD. ROAD

MR. HOWARD: I would like to ask the Minister of Forests whether he can confirm that in November 1982 Queest Beach Holdings Ltd. started to build a road over Crown land without any approval on the part of the Crown.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If it's something that happened in 1982 and if it's something related to Forests and Crown land, not having responsibility for the portfolio then, I would have to take that question as notice.

MR. HOWARD: Not that the minister's parliamentary secretary didn't bring these matters to his attention earlier. Could I ask the minister when it was subsequently discovered that Queest Beach Holdings Ltd. were in trespass on Crown land, that a penalty of $545 was imposed upon Queest Beach Holdings Ltd. by the regional office because of damage to Crown land, because of stealing and selling Crown timber, and for building a 400-metre road through Crown land?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I've already advised the member that I will take the question on notice.

MR. HOWARD: Would the minister also inquire as to whether his parliamentary secretary was the president of Queest Beach Holdings Limited?

GASOLINE PRICES

MR. D'ARCY: To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In recent years, the interior and the north consumers have been charged from one to two cents a litre more for gasoline than the price that was usually charged in the lower mainland when a gas war was not in effect in either general location. In recent months, the discrepancy has been four to five cents per litre, depending on where you were, in the interior or the north. I'm wondering what the minister has done as far as contacting the industry to find out why this price discrepancy is in place and how soon the industry is going to lower the price for interior and northern consumers, who, I might say, depend very much on gasoline and their cars simply to conduct their daily business and get about.

[ Page 8506 ]

[2:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think that member is, as many other people are, aware that there have been over the years all sorts of inquiries and studies and investigations about the different gasoline prices throughout the province. I think the general conclusion has always been that there is really not that much that can be done about it. We've talked to some of the companies about it, and it's partly the market system that is putting the gas prices on there.

One of the things that comes up at all times is the volume of sales in the lower mainland that makes a markup a little less of a markup and they still can survive. These are the arguments that have come in the past. I'm sure that they're the same arguments and answers that will come forth now. It's been used as apolitical device many times by many members and the answer always comes out basically the same: it's a marketing system that establishes the prices.

FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief ministerial statement and table a document in line with some of the requests of our loyal opposition. They have asked for a statement of the provincial participation in the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. This has been the earliest opportunity for us to present this to the Legislature inasmuch as the Premier of the province has first of all been discussing this paper with the western premiers and only last night presented it to the Prime Minister of Canada.

The provincial position, as the members all know, is to support the concept of negotiations towards free trade with the United States; to have a stay of all proceedings to impose duties — that is, to take away free trade that already exists; to have provincial consultation during the course of the negotiations and a ratification procedure at the termination of any agreement. I can report to the House from the Premier today that the B.C. position was accepted by the Prime Minister with compliments. The British Columbia position has been noted, and further statements will be coming from the Premier on his return and from the Prime Minister, keeping in mind that if one is to go to the table able to negotiate, one doesn't discuss in detail the whole of one's position prior to that time.

Members will also know that there have been some regrettable retrogressive steps which have particularly affected British Columbia: the shake-and-shingle episode and now the acceptance by the ITC of the U.S. softwood industry application for countervail. The position of the B.C. government is that the retaliatory measures are ones of deep regret, but necessary to indicate that Canada simply cannot accept trade insults without there being some reply. We still hope that there will be a reconsideration of the 35 percent tariff on shakes and shingles, and we hope as well that the ITC will continue to see the lack of merit in the U.S. softwood industry application.

We appeal once more to the members opposite to recognize that free trade is what we have had in shakes and shingles and softwood lumber, that particularly the national leader of the New Democratic Party has not wanted these free-trade discussions despite the position of the Premier of Manitoba. It would be helpful if there were in this Legislature united opinion on the desirability of free trade, because this is what we have in shakes and shingles and in softwood lumber. It has been taken away in shakes and shingles, and you can see the penalties and consequences when we give up free trade. It simply isn't good enough to demand when we have free trade that we retain free trade but we not negotiate protection and even extension of what has brought prosperity to this province.

In any event, this is not time for a political speech; it's time to provide information that the opposition asked, and I only make it with the appeal that the members opposite see the light and join us as united British Columbians in this endeavour.

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

MR. HOWARD: Well, apropos of that last sentence of the Minister of International Trade, he himself by his own rhetoric almost prevents someone from seeing any light whatsoever, in whatever he's talking about. I regret very much that he took the occasion, over a very substantive and important question to British Columbia, to distort and twist the remarks and position of the New Democratic Party in this House. That's a regrettable action.

We have said on more than one occasion, if hon. members opposite would listen, and I have to say it again, that lumber is not a negotiable item. Lumber now stands in the position of being free trade vis-à-vis our relationship with the United States, and we want to keep it that way. It's exactly the same with shakes and shingles. Red cedar shakes and shingles were in the position of being a free trade item until President Reagan saw fit to double-cross his buddy the Prime Minister of Canada and impose that kind of tariff.

I submit to you that we should be using — and we have advanced this argument on a number of occasions — our position at those trade negotiations to get a commitment out of the United States that it will reverse the 35 percent tariff on red cedar shakes and shingles, which is only applicable to British Columbia, and we should get a commitment out of the United States government that it will not even consider imposing a tariff of any kind on lumber produced in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, and exported into the United States. This is the purpose of the suggestion to recall Mr. Reisman from those talks for instructions from the federal government to pursue that course of action.

Free trade, so-called, is of much more advantage to the United States than it is to Canada. They desperately want it so that their manufactured goods can come into Canada without a tariff barrier and without a duty. That's the purpose, and that's the attraction to the United States. We should use that desire on the part of the United States as a lever in those negotiations, and insist upon that kind of response from the United States before we make further progress negotiating other items.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the petition that I am presenting is to "the hon. the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia in Legislature Assembled." The petition of the undersigned citizens, most of whom reside at or near Kelowna in the province of British Columbia, states:

[ Page 8507 ]

"We oppose the closure of Hollywood Road Junior Secondary School by School District 23. We urge the Minister of Education not to approve this closure and instead ask the board of school trustees to re-evaluate the situation and find a more reasonable solution in consultation with the community. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House convey this petition to the Premier and Minister of Education."

It's dated June 3, 1986. Along with the petition, I ask leave to table 110 letters from the students of Hollywood Road School, mostly addressed to the Minister of Education, outlining their opposition to the closure of their school.

Leave granted.

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to seek the floor just before the Clerk called the orders of the day. I'd like to respond to a question that was put to me a few days ago by the hon. member...

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ...for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). It deals with a question of safety of nuclear installations located near British Columbia borders. The most significant of these installations, as members well know, I presume, is contained in the Hanford reserve, which is at Richland, Washington, about 190 miles away. Other reactors are situated in Rainier, Oregon, and Idaho Falls, Idaho.

I've been in communication with the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, the Secretary of State for External Affairs for our country, and I've sought his assurance that the government of Canada has made it very clear to the United States authorities that nuclear facilities operating near the Canadian border should be maintained with the highest possible regard for public safety; and I requested an account of the measures that Mr. Clark's department has taken to inform the United States government of Canadian concerns.

I further indicated that we'd appreciate being informed of the information which the United States authorities may have provided with respect to the safety of these nuclear installations that are closest to our borders, and drew to the attention of Mr. Clark that it is our view that the question of reactor safety is one in which the very closest of cooperation is required and warranted between our two countries, and suggested that the use of the good offices of the existing binational agency — the International Joint Commission — could perhaps play a part in that.

We're looking forward to an early response from Mr. Clark, and with the leave of the House I would ask if I may file the letter that I sent to him.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

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

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

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, when we were having our discussions prior to the lunch break we were asking the minister about the casino gambling regulations, and a press release was put out saying that there were now regulations for casino and bingos. Now we find out that the regulations are for bingos and the casino regulations have not been released. They probably haven't even gone to cabinet, and there hasn't been any public input.

There is a committee of this House that has never met, called the justice committee, which could have been activated. It has members. It could be sitting together with the Vancouver police or other police organizations, interested groups, in making sure that adequate controls are in place to ensure that legalized gambling, licensed casino gambling, commercial gambling — whatever you want to call it — in the province of British Columbia does not go the route of such activities that have taken place in other parts of the world where inadequate controls result in skimming of the profits, and the recipients, the charity groups and so on that are supposed to be the recipients of some of the funds, get the proper funds and there are proper safeguards for the clients, the people who are playing the game, and all the other safeguards around it in terms of a large amount of capital or cash — ready cash. That invites oftentimes illegal activities that we certainly don't need in the province of British Columbia.

So we're very unclear on this side of the House precisely where these regulations are at, how the public and the various interest organizations can now have input, at what sort of interim stage are these regulations, and when will cabinet be dealing with them.

[2:45]

My colleague from north Okanagan (Mr. MacWilliam) has asked a number of questions along this line. We would like some answers from the minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I did give some answers this morning, and if they didn't satisfy the member, may I just repeat and maybe embellish that response.

I want you to know that casino regulations have existed since 1978 and what you had on Friday was a very clear statement on how those casino regulations would be changed in order to reflect the thinking of the government. The regulations will be made available to the public no later than Friday of this week and as early as tomorrow. They are already in existence. They are really changing the regulations that were already in place, but changing the amount. For example, the ceiling of a $5 bet has been reduced to a $2 bet. That was very clearly done on Friday at the press conference.

There was nothing obscure about the message or the regulations or the intent of the regulations. I really take exception to the member's thinking that I had in some way not wanted to put those regulations forward.

These regulations are simply a change in terms of amounts, etc., the same kinds of things that have gone on in other years. It's been consistent. It is not new. It was only re-

[ Page 8508 ]

emphasized that casino-style gambling licences were available only as an adjunct to a social occasion. That's not a brand-new regulation; it's been there all the while. A maximum of three casino licences per year per organization has been there all the while. That's just a reaffirmation of what has already been there. Some of the things that were changed, such as the minimum 50 percent of casino keep to be donated to charity — that was not a change in the regulation but a change in the amount. It was heretofore 35 percent, and it's been changed so that 50 percent of the proceeds will go to the charity.

So I want to assure the member — and I'm sure he asked the question in all good faith — that the return and the one that really does have the attention of most of the people in the game is regarding the $5 reduced to $2. I think he will have had those kinds of representations made to him, and all members of this House will have. The return to this bet is consistent with the regulation that did exist between 1978 and 1984, when charitable donations from casinos were in excess of 50 percent of the proceeds.

There was direct consultation with the police in the city of Vancouver, and the RCMP, which resulted in the limit of 12 licences per week in Vancouver. That is a change. That was very directly a response to them, because of their monitoring capability, or lack thereof, if there is a proliferation of games.

I hope the member is satisfied that it is simply a reaffirmation of some of the rules that were already in existence. We. will get them out at the earliest possible opportunity. If I could get them out by five today I would get them out. But I think they will be ready by tomorrow.

MR. MacWILLIAM: First of all let me say that the general direction the minister appears to be taking with the new regulations is favourable. What does concern me, however, is not necessarily the change but rather the process. The minister, in the news release on May 30, said that new bingo and casino policy directives are the result of consultations with a wide variety of community groups. The minister takes issue with this, but according to an interview on CBC this morning the police were not directly consulted. At least that was the statement from the individual there. But more so, I would like to ask the minister how many community groups and which community groups she solicited information from or canvassed with regard to changes in the casino policy — not the bingo, because I know that was well canvassed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You're correct in your statement that there was more concentration on community groups with bingos, because, you see, there are more community groups concerned with casinos.... In terms of the casino operations, we have had from various people, and I have in my possession from the time that I was asked to take on this responsibility.... Very many people have phoned, seen and written to me regarding the proliferation of casinos in the province. The member has many times expressed that concern himself. I think these regulations will curtail the tremendous growth, will give more of the take, if you like, to charities and will see a stop in the watering-down effect. There were getting to be many more charities which were splitting the pie. I think that was reinforced today, also on the same radio show, on which you say that the person interviewed was not consulted. It is quite possible that the person interviewed, in explaining to the radio host his lack of detail or whatever, was himself not consulted. I can tell you that the Vancouver police and the RCMP were consulted not just for a short time but over a long period of time. My predecessor had information and input from them, and I have had, as has the Attorney-General.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Without having the regulations pursuant to the casinos in front of me — they have not been released at this time — it is somewhat difficult to assess whether the regulations have been made too stringent or whether they have been made stringent enough. It's difficult to assess whether there are any unforeseen loopholes inherent in the regulations which really can't be — or perhaps fail to be — picked up because of the lack of consultation.

I wonder if the minister would consider putting out the regulations in draft form and giving the community at large a chance to respond before the regulations become finalized. Once again, I appreciate what she's trying to do, but my concern is that we haven't got the regulations in front of us and there may be weaknesses. I maintain that there has been insufficient discussion of them. I'm sure the minister is quite well aware that when drafting fairly detailed regulations, sometimes things are overlooked. Sometimes things are implemented which are unworkable. I think the community at large should at least have some input into this process.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member knows that this process has been going on since 1978 and we are simply amending the regulations. There will be an opportunity for amendments as the years go by. The process will continue as government hears from both sides of the House, from people in the community. No, I do not plan to put it out as a White Paper or a discussion paper. The regulations will come in as stated.

Frankly, with the greatest respect, everything in that press release was I think fairly well and clearly spelled out. Any of the changes are clearly spelled out. The member is perhaps reflecting the fact that there is a concern. Perhaps he has been receiving a few phone calls from people — all members of this House will — because there is very definitely a change in the take. There's no question that that will be a concern to those who are in the business. I appreciate that, but I wanted to make those changes. I gave you notice, at the time a question was brought before this House, that I intended to look at it.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the member, having looked at it, having decided that this was the way they can be curtailed — can keep organized crime out of the province — would ask for a postponement or another look. The answer is no, and if I can get those regulations out in the nearest opportunity just to ensure that there is no lack of clarity, believe me, I will do it as quickly as I possibly can.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment briefly on the transit portion of the minister's responsibilities and very sincerely commend the minister for the establishment of the park-and-ride facility that we have just off Scott Road in Surrey. I've been down to the site on several occasions, and I can assure her that it is an overwhelming success even though it has not been broadly publicized. Obviously the word is getting around that it's easy access to the transportation that can take people into Expo, and there is generally, I would say, a minimum of 50 percent usage of the lot. On one occasion it was at least two-thirds full.

[ Page 8509 ]

I would also like to speak, I guess, for our colleague from New Westminster, who seems to forget to mention the new life that has been brought into New Westminster because of the SkyTrain extension to that city. I know that my colleague from Surrey and I are looking forward with great anticipation to the awarding of the contract for the crossing of the Fraser River, which will see SkyTrain come into the South Westminster area of our constituency, immediately followed by an extension into Whalley.

So Madam Minister, on behalf of the two members for Surrey, we want to thank you for the extension into our community and to assure you that it is being used at this time, even though just on a transit park-and- ride-into-the-SkyTrain-station basis. We can assure you that it will be absolutely oversubscribed when the installation is complete.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, I have gone on record as supporting the general thrust of her changes with regard to the casino and bingo operations. But just to clarify that for the minister, the reason I asked for consultation with the community at large is simply to ensure that the regulatory changes that have been imposed are in fact changes that are realistic and stringent enough. We have great concern on this side of the House about the element of organized crime, as well as the element of excess profit-taking and the social problems that are attendant with legalized gambling. The minister is fully aware of those concerns, and the reason I address that is to ensure that those regulations are in fact tight enough.

[3:00]

However, let's leave that for a moment. I want to go to a specific area, going back to the regulations, which I do have before me, on bingo. section 1.01 in the new regulations tries to identify or give a clear interpretation of the term "charitable object." If I can just read this out:

"Charitable object or purpose means an object or purpose which comes within one of the legal classifications of charity: (1) relief of poverty, (2) advancement of education, (3) the advancement of religion and (4) other purposes beneficial to the community (this includes a purpose where the benefits derived are available to a significant portion of the community without discrimination, and, without limiting the intent, may include the provision and support of public recreation, picnic areas, playgrounds, cultural activities....)"

In a report that I submitted for the minister's consideration back in December, the definition of "charitable object" does not seem to have been amended from back then. The criticism I had at that time is that there does not appear to be a clear interpretation of "charitable," even within the framework of the present interpretation. I think that the definition is still inadequate, because it doesn't give precise guidelines or qualifications.

A good example is the word "significant." What composes a significant community interest? The reason I bring that up is that there is a lot of confusion. For example, does a local ski team qualify as being a charitable object? Do they make a significant contribution to the community? How is that different, for example, from a church group as a charitable object? I think there is a problem in there in delineating what the term charitable object means. There is a lot of confusion out there in the community, and I don't think that your changes have taken in that concern.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think that there is a reason for wanting to have significant charitable organizations: so that it will cover some things. I think in the new regulations we are able to clearly cover amateur sports, which was rather vague before. I will take your comments, however.

They are regulations. They can be changed very easily and often, if we want to. But we would like to have them consistent and not change them too often, so they can be well understood by the public.

I think you will find that it covers a wide range and does not shut out too many things. I think that was what we were concerned with, that perhaps you would come along with an idea or representing an organization, and if it is too tightly controlled, then they just don't fit into the guidelines. We are trying as much as possible to make it possible for those who are truly serving a wide group in the community, represented by that line that makes a significant contribution.

While I'm on my feet I would like to thank the first member for Surrey, who talks about the SkyTrain and the park-and-ride, and I want to say that the suggestion given for the park-and-ride at Surrey was very useful to us, because we have been deluged, more so in that particular park-and-ride than any other, and particularly with American tourists. The suggestion that had come to us from the members was to do with the exchange on the dollar, the difference in the dollar — a well-posted and clear direction. So that was very helpful. We, too, look forward to going into Surrey.

MR. REE: I want to stand here because I've sat listening to most of this debate with respect to the minister's estimates, and a great part of it certainly shows the different political philosophy between the two parties in this House. We sat listening to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) talking about certain possible changes in the Election Act — and I appreciate that legislation is not a subject matter of estimates. He was talking about having cards sent out to voters confirming that they've been on the voters' list. He was talking about having it accessible so that you can be registered, saying voters will not be registered and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REE: The support and the applause to those statements that I'm receiving from the members of the opposition here indicates their philosophy. Their strict philosophy is to lead everybody by the hand in this province. In other words, they don't feel anybody should have any individual initiative himself. Nobody should be responsible for themselves. They want government to be responsible for everybody. And that is strictly what? They want to tell people what path they can go down, and so on.

Our legislation at this time provides excellent information for letting somebody know whether they're on the voters' list. It does an enumeration at and between election times. It maintains offices where people can go if they are interested in getting on the voters' list, or if their MLA has enough knowledge to tell them where to go to get on the voters' list people can do that between elections at any time. And in addition the present legislation provides that a person still has a means of registering and voting on election day if he's not on the voters' list beforehand. It's not an absentee vote. We in British

[ Page 8510 ]

Columbia, under our elections laws, have the broadest opportunities for people to participate in the democratic process and be registered and vote on election day of any province in Canada, including Manitoba. But, Mr. Chairman, we listen to these people that want to take everybody by the hand and help them along. In other words, a person hasn't got an opportunity to do their own thing and have some individual responsibility.

I just wished to point that out. That's the big difference between the two political parties in this chamber, Mr. Chairman: there are those that want to lead everybody and those that are letting people get out and be individuals and be responsible.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Your philosophical insight is devastating.

MR. REE: I know it is.

But I basically wanted to stand here and thank the minister with respect to a lottery grant application that was recently approved here about a week or so ago for $400,000 for Capilano College. The students at Capilano College, on their initiative, with the support of the staff of Capilano College, wanted to have a recreational facility for the whole community of the North Shore in the lower mainland. They started it; they worked it; they put the idea together. The idea was not to come to government to pay for the whole thing. They're prepared to pay and work for some of it themselves and they're prepared to get the community involved to pay for part of it, but they did come to government for a certain portion of it — less than one-third, as far as the provincial government is concerned, of the $3.8 million cost for this recreational facility. The Minister of Post-Secondary Education out of the capital fund approved $800,000 and the Provincial Secretary as minister responsible for lotteries did approve the $400,000. Madam Minister, on behalf of the students — because I was out there for their graduation ceremony — they want to extend their appreciation for the approval and for the grant. It will be a great addition to the North Shore community. We have the district of North Vancouver contributing. I'm hoping the city of North Vancouver will contribute. I hope the district of West Vancouver will also contribute, because a great number of the students at Capilano College do come from West Vancouver. And the students themselves are going to contribute over a period of time up to $700,000 of the total cost. That's the type of students we have in British Columbia, those who are prepared, certainly at Cap College, to go out and work for things that they themselves feel are desirable and not just to look to government for the handout all the time.

In addition I wish to thank the minister for an approval for approximately $25,000 recently with respect to the upgrading of our little-league baseball field in the city of North Vancouver. The JayCee-Rotary-Little League group promoted this, and in total $100,000 was raised to complete this baseball field, which this summer will be hosting the B.C. Little League championships in August. The facility is almost completed. I've been up there. The members of the community, particularly a great number of the parents, have been out working there, hammering the nails in themselves, putting wiring in, laying concrete, and one thing and another. With some help of government, the communities are doing this. When the community will get out and work for something like that, I as an MLA certainly will go to bat and see what I can do to help them. So, Madam Minister, I thank you on that.

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

Interjections.

MR. REE: If the event is worthwhile and responsible and the community is sponsoring it, MLAs should get out there and help obtain these, because they are available, and that's what they're there for, for the community — not for operation but for capital costs.

Madam Minister, I had an MLA tell.... This last group I want to thank you for went to their MLA, and he said: "Oh, it's not available, so I'm not even going to bother." He didn't even bother to come and make any inquiries to see whether he could get it. They came to me, and we got approval for $40,000 for a volunteer fire hall outside Nanaimo. The MLA up there said he wasn't going to work for the people on that. And I noticed that earlier this afternoon the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) raised his eyes when he heard that lottery moneys were available for fire halls — he didn't know anything about it. I'd had another one a year ago, also up in Nanaimo, which was published in the newspaper up there. The Nanaimo member didn't even remember this letter, that we had had this. The member for Coquitlam-Moody didn't have any knowledge of availability of up to $40,000 for capital costs and renovating of volunteer fire halls. That is why they are in opposition and we are in government — because they don't know.

Madam Minister, one aspect of your mandate, of course, is transit, and I have a couple of questions with respect to that. First, I'd like to thank the transit people for the cooperation they have given the Expo 86 volunteer league in North Vancouver in the use of facilities down at the SeaBus terminal in North Vancouver. They've been very cooperative. We've been able to use the signboard, and have functions down there with various community groups participating. There are two items I'd like to have attended to if I can. One is the bus terminal under the ICBC building. I understand it does not have any water-hose connections. That area becomes quite filthy from time to time, not only because of people going through but also because of pigeons. Possibly something can be done to make sure that can be maintained in a clean condition. It should be cleaned about two or three times a week at least, because it does stay fairly dirty.

One other item, Madam Minister. The development of SkyTrain is starting to make Vancouver a bedroom for North Vancouver. SkyTrain is an extension of Lonsdale and what not with the SeaBus, and of course, traffic is starting to increase substantially on the SeaBus. I'm wondering whether any studies are going on at this time as to the possibility of stretching SeaBuses — extending them up or down or whatever to increase their capacity; or as to when a third SeaBus might be in the works; and if you haven't got that, whether you could get back at a later time and advise me on it. I thank you.

[3:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to respond to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. The facility which he mentions at Capilano College is going to be a facility which serves the whole of the North Shore and very many people, so I'm pleased he mentioned it today. I

[ Page 8511 ]

have to say that the kind of work he has done in his constituency, working with people in his community, has been outstanding, and I really do appreciate that. I know that's the result of some of the work he has done with that college particularly, and that was a great contribution to the area.

May I tell you that the bus terminal and the cleaning facilities have always been a problem at that SeaBus terminal. There is a cleaning service, but I can't from memory give you how frequent it is. It really is a problem because of the number of people, even in a non-Expo year, so I'll take another look at it. I didn't know about the lack of a hose connection. I'm surprised at that. They must have some facility, because they do come in and steam-clean it. I was not aware of the lack of connections, but I'll certainly look into that.

What has happened there is that we are really suffering from the fantastic success of Expo 86, when you talk about the number of people and the need for another SeaBus vehicle. We looked into that before, and we do have some studies going on to see whether or not another kind of transportation.... Opening up a SeaBus connection further along the North Shore may even be possible, but that study is not complete. At the time all of this was done so that it could be done in time for Expo 86 it did not seem financially viable. It might have been financially viable for Expo year, but once Expo was over, then it was too much of a plant for what we needed in an ordinary time.

So we really are suffering from the success, the tremendous success, of Expo 86, and we hope that it will continue. I know it will never continue quite at the pitch that it will this summer, but we are preparing for the advent of tremendous growth, and particularly with the economic impetus that has happened because of the SeaBus terminal and because of the anchor ICBC building. It was a departure to take it from downtown and into the North Vancouver community, and all of the anchor buildings that made it possible for a fantastic commercial organization and private funding to go in there. You're absolutely correct, but it has made such a difference to North Vancouver and to the terminal of the SeaBus that that success, I think, will continue, but as I say, not at the high pitch of Expo 86. We are preparing for that.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, a question on transit-related items to the minister, two of which have key interest, I think, to the communities of greater Vancouver as the current result of some problems which have developed in relation to security.

I would ask the minister if she would consider to press now for installation of two-way radios in all the buses that service the greater Vancouver regional district area and possibly the Victoria area.

Interjection.

MR. REID: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm in here looking after my job as a Whip; I don't read all the press releases. But if that is the case, Madam Minister, I commend you on that, because as a person involved with transit for a few years I realize the dilemma over the safety factor that was involved, and we implemented a new system which was partially integrated. But if that is an announcement today, I am extremely pleased about it.

The other question, Madam Minister, if I could ask, is: would it now be appropriate, with the accelerated ridership in both the buses and SkyTrain, to give serious consideration to part-time operators during the balance of the season since it seems that we are still parking buses during some daytime periods when there is still an additional requirement? I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to employing more part-time operators during the time when the need is there, serving the ridership which has increased beyond the wildest dreams of everybody. So, Madam Minister, I would ask you to look into both of those.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, to relieve the system over this very difficult time, we do have the possibility of using part-time operators. At the present time our B.C. Transit staff are looking to take some really major steps to meet what we think is even going to be a very much greater influx of people when the young people are out of school, and Alberta, American and other Canadian families are coming from all parts of the North American continent, and the world for that matter, to visit Vancouver.

The second phase of the emergency or the Expo planning transportation is coming into place, and before the end of this month it will be all in place, and that is the second phase.

In regard to the telephones, I did announce it today. That has been a study for over a year now of B.C. Transit, and it has reflected the concerns of the drivers, it has reflected the concern of the public, and it reflects the study and the consultation that we have had in B.C. Transit. In the first phase, 850 buses, the ones that are in service, will cover the 1,200-square-kilometre area, and each one will have a direct telephone service in it.

Our system covers the largest geographical area of any system in Canada. I know I don't have to tell you that, but it brings with it problems. It is a marvellous service, but it goes over such a large area that when one considers that in some places there is a very long ride sometimes with only one or two people in a very sparsely populated area, the concerns that we have regarding safety are very real.

The service will be extended to other areas of the province, to our 25 small community services, and of course to the city of Victoria. The implementation of this is immediate and it should all be in place in the next few weeks.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, listen to all this stuff! Listen to it all. And only bits and pieces come out. All of the back-bench boys talking about the grease that is available through the Lottery Corporation — Grace grease from the Lottery Corporation. That is exactly what it is. Incredible! One talks about money got for his little league. Another talks about a hall in Pritchard or on the north shore of Shuswap Lake or in Sicamous. Somebody else talks about another facility, but all of it is based on political priorities — Grace grease, political priorities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're beginning to offend the Chair, and I would just as soon you avoid that term in reference to another member.

MR. WILLIAMS: You bet. I agree. Not only the Chair, but all of British Columbia should be offended. All of British Columbia should be offended by this kind of stuff, where....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You destroyed your government and now you're ruining the opposition.

[ Page 8512 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: There is the Minister of Forests who used to be crying the blues, still holding his thumb in the corner because he didn't make it as Minister of Forests. He blew it last year in the fire season.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One moment, please. Thank you. Now the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will come to order and not interrupt, and the second member for Vancouver East will speak to the estimates and will proceed in parliamentary fashion.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But that's it indeed. I mean, let's just try to deal with it in a kind of rational public policy way. I'm sure the Chairman would prefer that. The question of volunteer fire halls: isn't it reasonable that if we're in the business of helping volunteer fire halls in British Columbia, as this minister is wont to do in some areas, there should be an across-the-board policy — i.e., British Columbia will help volunteer fire halls throughout British Columbia, if it's 25 percent, 50 percent or 75 percent? It's universal, and it doesn't depend on whether the member is a Socred member or a member from the NDP. You just check how many volunteer fire halls are helped on the basis of politics in this province, and it will be very clear where the line is drawn. It will be very, very clear indeed where the line is drawn. It's just a matter of rational public policy, but this minister has trouble with that.

She can't generally separate policy from administration, because she's down there with the hoses and the pigeons anyway in terms of half these facilities. It's an impossible job for administrators under this particular ministry because of that kind of involvement, an absolutely impossible job. There should be rational guidelines where everybody understands what the game is and what's fair and what isn't fair. Instead we get this kind of thing where you get these nice little speeches from the back-benchers saying how wonderful the woman from Little Mountain is and how much we all appreciate what she did for me yesterday, and I'm being nice to her today because of something I want her to do for me tomorrow. That's the kind of crummy political game that still goes on here in 1986, and we all thought it went out with Tammany Hall in 1929. It's still that kind of operation.

Anyway I'd like to ask the minister a question with respect to the casino rules and regulations. The minister decided to hold a press conference on Friday in Vancouver — not here, but in Vancouver — and she announced regulations. Nobody has seen the regulations. Can the minister explain why, when she rushed to a press conference, she didn't have the regulations with her and why we haven't seen them so far?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I've already given a very full explanation, a very full explanation indeed, and I'll be very glad to do it all over again. The casino regulations are changes that are ongoing changes. Casinos have been in the province since 1978, and they're ongoing regulations. Their growth and the circumstances surrounding them, the representations from police enforcement agencies, have led us to change them. I would be pleased if you would give me leave, or perhaps at the end of this session I'd like to ask leave, to table in the House the regulations which are available now.

I said earlier to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) that I would try to have them by tomorrow. They are ready now. I knew that they were almost ready, and I was hoping to get them, certainly by the end of the week. I am pleased to table them at this point in time, if I can ask leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tabling cannot be done in Committee of Supply, Madam Minister. We'll have to wait until the House resumes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate that. I'll do that after the House goes out of committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: What's the normal process in terms of the administrative steps with respect to regulations such as this, Madam Minister?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That's an unusual question for this member to ask, because he's been in government, and he knows that when legislation is struck, regulations are put forward to support legislation. He also knows that when a policy is struck there are regulations governing a particular policy, and he knows full well what the process is. I don't know what sinister or what obscure kind of motivation he thinks I have in calling a press conference and changing the casino and bingo rules. His questioning is along the lines that he probably thinks something is wrong. I have to tell you that you were given full notice of my commitment to change the casino and bingo regulations. That commitment was given way back in April when I first took on the responsibility of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. I haven't had the portfolio all that long, but I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in the time that I have had the portfolio, and even in the very first question in this House, I indicated my concern. I've acted on that concern. It's the concern of government, and the government has made that statement and the rules that everybody seems to be concerned about, which were fully explained.

[3:30]

I have to tell you, there's nothing hidden in those regulations. They were very fully explained in the press conference and the press release. But they will be fully, fully, fully in detail and by each and every numbered regulation.... They will be available to you when we get out of the Committee of Supply, to give me the availability to file them in the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would have thought that the normal procedure was for those regulations to be approved by executive council.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, what makes the member think that they were not? If he wants to go into the detail of it, not only were they approved by the social services committee of cabinet and then taken to full executive council, they were also approved there and the approval for my public statement was given at that time. I don't know why the member for Vancouver East would doubt that that would happen that way. I'm surprised that he even makes the statement. He has been in government. He does know what the process is. I wouldn't have thought I would have to draw that out for him. I'm rather surprised at the question.

[ Page 8513 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll advise the committee that the business of the executive council or a committee of the executive council is not the business of Committee of Supply. We are discussing specifically the estimates of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the executive council had approved these regulations, what I find difficult to understand is why the regulations weren't presented at the press conference on Friday. Can the minister explain why they were not presented at the press conference on Friday?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The regulations and the spirit of the regulations were well canvassed by government before the announcement was made, and with the Attorney-General, I might add. But I have to tell you that the executive council certainly was in approval. As the member has said, what goes on at executive council is really nothing that should be discussed or can be discussed. I have to tell you that even for you to ask the question seems a little strange, because you would know more than anybody else that that kind of approval would have to be given to any member before a public announcement would be made that would affect so many people in the province.

Casinos have been a very popular thing throughout the province of British Columbia, and they've grown very quickly. It is for the very reason that they have grown quickly that the rules have been changed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have some difficulty with the idea of taking spirit — spirits — to the executive council, and the spirit of the regulations seems to me just a little bit hard to grab hold of in some respects. The minister interestingly uses the term "the spirit of the regulations." It seems fairly clear, to me at least, that what was really going on here was a pre-emptive strike by the minister — a pre-emptive strike in terms of her own opinion about what the rules and regulations should be. Her own view....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. WILLIAMS: No, not "Oh, come on!" What's very apparent to observers here is that what's going on is in this interregnum, when we have a lame-duck Premier, is that we have ministers that take on extra powers and extra authority. You get this minister talking about taking the spirit of regulations to meetings. It's very clear what's going on.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You should know. You had a lame-duck Premier for three years.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. The Minister of Agriculture still is mad about being the Minister of Agriculture.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

That's clearly what has been happening. We have a Premier that was away in Ottawa, a Premier that is effectively moving out of office — a lame-duck situation — and what we have is individual decisions taken by cabinet ministers talking about the spirit of the regulations. What happened Friday clearly was a pre-emptive strike, a decision by the minister before there were regulations. The regulations brought in just now, with the ink drying on them, clearly could not have been regulations that were taken to cabinet. The regulations just brought in the door still had wet ink. That seems to be the pattern. Whether that's part of some other program in terms of the leadership thing or the rest of it, it's fascinating to watch.

Under this ministry, there have been all kinds of expenditures in the last year in terms of payments and grease of one kind or another. A very big lump was paid out in terms of former employees, and maybe the minister can explain those payments. The numbers I looked at in reviewing public accounts were about $14 million in severance pay. Can the minister advise me what the average severance pay was during the last fiscal year with respect to her ministry? In addition, I see they spent something like $35,000 for Omega gold watches. Was that an ancillary expenditure relative to those terminations or are those the 25-year sort of arrangements, or what? Maybe she can give us more of the details of the $14 million in severance pay — in the name of restraint in British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd like to answer the three subjects that the member has brought up. In spite of the fact that he's trying to flush out something that is not even there, I said on the floor of this House earlier today, when I was asked by the member for Victoria, that the regulations were done but they were not made public until.... I'm going to do that today. I knew they were nearly finished. There were just little items to be redone on them — the wording and so on tidied up. Anything you've said today regarding my colleagues' lack of knowledge in regard to the casino regulations is a figment of your own imagination. It is absolutely not true that they were unaware, and I resent the inference you have put forward today. It is completely untrue. It's very like the member from Vancouver East to weave some kind of conspiracy thing; that suits the philosophical bent. But it isn't true, and I categorically refuse to accept that kind of inference from the second member for Vancouver East.

Secondly, you mentioned earlier in your questions about lottery grants for fire halls. You mentioned that very few fire hall grants are given, but it's interesting that two were in opposition-type ridings — Lantzville volunteer fire department and the Cranberry volunteer fire department — one north of Nanaimo, one south of Nanaimo.

Regarding the gold watches, a public servant who serves for 35 years in the province of British Columbia is, at a dinner honouring their length of service and their contribution to the people of British Columbia, awarded a gold watch. I would think the expenditure of a gold watch for someone who has served 35 years in dedicated service to the province is an expenditure that all the people of British Columbia would laud.

You asked about severance. The average would be $9,500.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the average was $9,500, some were as high as $60,000. Would the minister confirm that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not clear to me, in terms of the answer, if she cannot confirm it — i.e. It was not so — or she simply doesn't know.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: She says she can't confirm it. It's like she says.

[ Page 8514 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there are two options, The member from Yale-Lillooet might not understand that.

The question was: in some cases, was as much as $60,000 paid in terms of severance to some former officials of the provincial administration?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't have that figure. I am advised that that figure isn't available right at this second, but the member knows that if he puts that question on the order paper it can be very quickly obtained for him. I'd be pleased to do that.

MR. WILLIAMS: It just seems to me that $14 million is a lot of money. That amount was paid out in the last fiscal year. I presume there was a substantial amount in the previous fiscal year; I haven't been privy to those public accounts details. But let us just remember that this restraint program — so-called — costs the people of British Columbia a great deal of money, and $14 million alone in severance pay.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the member's query, let me say that the severance pay is very large in this particular year, but for the same people who received severance pay, if they had not been severed, if they had not taken severance pay, the annual savings to the people of British Columbia is $37.5 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: And the assumption and suggestion of the minister is that there is absolutely no service for that amount of money; you know, that there isn't something on the other side of the balance sheet in terms of services to people or a whole range of other things which cannot be ignored.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I know. I'm making the point because you chose not to, that's all.

I wonder how the minister feels, and if she intends during her tenure to do the kind of spending that has been the pattern in this department. I wonder if she's watched the "Say It With Music" production by Jem Productions. Has she listened to or watched the "Say It With Music" production that her ministry produced?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am not familiar with the film of which the member speaks, but he also is knowledgeable that I'm very new in the ministry and that would have come before my time. If he would like to explain where that one has been shown, if it's an Expo film I have probably seen it. I wasn't aware that Jem Productions did an Expo film, but all that I have seen at Expo have been excellent and I would congratulate them if they did.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well that, of course, was Mr. Heal, a former staff person with the government who is very close to the Social Credit Party. He charged $32,867.33 for "Say It With Music." I would like the opportunity to see these films myself. I've been advised that one is available in the Small Business ministry, but if arrangements could be made for the opposition to see these various films it would certainly be appreciated.

There's another one. I wonder if the minister has seen this one by Doug and the boys, Jem Productions. It's called "Take A Giant Step." Oh, I'm sorry, Dave Brown and Doug Heal. Has the minister seen the other film "Take A Giant Step"?

[3:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would think that neither of the films that the member has spoken of today have come under my ministry. I think they do not. During the year we are discussing in my ministry estimates at this moment, there were Expo and economic development opportunity type, Expo-related films done for economic development–related activities in order to boost economic development on an international basis, and you may be referring to that kind of film. If you want detailed information on that, again, if they could be questions put on the order paper, because I frankly don't have that information at hand.

MR. WILLIAMS: "Take A Giant Step," of course, is the magnum opus with respect to northeast coal. So it's the story of northeast coal: take a giant step into another hole.

There is another film that Mr. Brown and Jem Productions also turned out. This is all for GIS, the minister's department. Some $66,584.76 was spent on "Health Care — Our First Priority." Has the minister seen that one, and is it available to the opposition?

HON. MR. McCARTHY: I am sure it would be. I think you should be in touch with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I am sure he would make it available. I see no reason why any of them are not available to you. I don't understand that that's related to the question at hand.

What I am trying to find here, and I am sorry, when your line of questioning is in detail of names of films on which I don't have that information.... I can tell you how much was spent from my ministry. You mentioned the name of Doug Heal, and I can tell you what was spent. We do not have Mr. Heal under any contract with the Provincial Secretary. You mentioned the name of Mr. Brown and Jem Productions, and he has done production of "Provincial Report" television commercials, and he has done economic development commercials. He has done footage in British Columbia. He produced a remarkable film for Tsukuba, all done in the Japanese language as well as the English language, and it was quite an outstanding film. I would think in my rather amateur assessment of films that it was really an award-winning film for the province of British Columbia. I can't name all of the work that has been done. That was one I happened to know about because I was impressed with the two languages for the Pacific Rim. In total, Jem Productions had seven contracts with our ministry in this past year which we are discussing, for a total of $408,397.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am getting the impression, then, that all of the films through the various related ministries will be available. I think that that would be extremely useful for the opposition to take out into the various ridings and show how almost half a million dollars of public money was spent promoting the government.

MR. REID: Watch them. They're pretty positive, you know. Promise to watch them yourself.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it would be really fun, especially with the northeast coal one, because after this summer it may be something for the archives.

[ Page 8515 ]

I wonder how much of that $408,000 was spent with respect to filming the Coquihalla Highway question, and other odds and ends. The visit of the Lord Mayor of London to the British pavilion — we paid for the filming of that. The visit of the Lord Mayor of London rates public expenditure on filming. What kind of economic development or job creation does all that represent? It is just all part of the propaganda exercise of your ministry.

Governor Spellman was here from Washington in that fiscal year, and you spent $5,823.95 filming Governor Spellman from Washington State. What would we use...?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Agriculture is being helpful again.

What would we use $5,800 worth of film of Governor Spellman for, Mr. Chairman? Maybe the minister could advise me. What would the film of Governor Spellman, costing $5,800, be used for in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it probably had something to do with the promotion of Expo prior to Expo. I would only be guessing, because I really do not know. That could well be. But we very often take film of people who are prominent citizens from other places for cooperation and in order to assist the kind of economic discussions that go on between our countries. One particular one is a film that was done in China to emphasize our Pacific Rim contacts. It wasn't done through this ministry, but Jack Munro was in that film, and perhaps that might be something that you would be concerned with as well.

I want you to know that I do have the answer now on the "Say It With Music" film. It was produced by Jem for use by the Premier on his trip to China, and it was designed to show the province to an interested audience, replacing narrative with music. It was well received. It has been used very effectively since then by official missions to China and other foreign countries. It was produced by Jem and contracted by this ministry. I'm sorry I didn't recognize the name of that film, but I think I did see the very beginning of it. It had a unique treatment inasmuch as it was all done by music, showing the people of our province in settings we wish to promote in the Pacific Rim, and enhanced, of course, by the incredible scenery of British Columbia. As you know, it's very easy to make a film in British Columbia because of the scenery. That is the answer to your "Say It With Music" one.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just wonder if the minister has any rules in terms of what should be spent on dinners and entertaining out-of-province guests or others on various occasions. Is there a sort of basic set of guidelines on expenditure per person for dinners and various events like that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The protocol office does have a formula, and I've just sent for it. I'd be very glad to answer that question, or I can give it to the member if he wants to put it on the order paper. It's a formula that has been established over a long period of time, and it has guidelines as to how much should be spent.

MR. BARNES: I just want to ask the minister to perhaps give me some assistance with a local problem in my constituency respecting an application placed by Black Theatre West, which is a non-profit society that applied for a casino licence early in April. On the 21st — in about ten days; it was a pretty quick response — they received approval for licence No. 55730 to conduct a series of events which were to take place on May 12, 13 and 14 at the Fraser Arms Hotel. Everything was going just fine, until they discovered on May 9 that there had been a problem with double booking at the hotel. Panic, as you can imagine, ensued. When they contacted the lottery branch about remedies to the problem, they were advised that they should arrange another date with the hotel, which they did and secured June 9, 10 and 11 as alternative dates.

However, the branch took another look at the application. I should point out that one other thing agreed upon at the time of setting the new date was that the licence that had been issued would remain in force, so that all that would have been required was that Black Theatre West submit a letter stating the new dates, and no other problems were anticipated. However, the branch apparently is looking at the applicant's qualifications with regard to the licence. Apparently this is not the first time this society has received a licence. They received a raffle licence in 1983, I understand. They have been operating as a non-profit society, sponsoring the Junior Black Achievement Awards, among many other worthy community events, for the past five years. But they were being questioned by the branch with respect to their qualifications under the Society Act. This is a question that concerns me. I happen to know that this is a society registered in the province of British Columbia and in possession of a federally issued tax number, which they make available to people who are making donations to it. As you know, June 9, 10, 11 are not that far away — next week — so there is some urgency and an understandable concern by the society because they're attempting to promote this series of events and will require time to set this up. Of course everyone is concerned. I'm wondering if you could look into that matter and clarify it for them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be very pleased to look into the situation, and depending on when I get out of here today, I'll make a phone call to do that.

While I'm on my feet, I offer my personal congratulations to the first member for Vancouver Centre, who has contributed so greatly to the sports field and will be recognized tomorrow night. I will be there to help honour you, along with the many people who will be there to pay tribute to your achievements. I'm really happy to hear from the first member for Vancouver Centre. He was my critic when I was in my other ministry and I would have missed him if he hadn't gotten to his feet today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it would be difficult for one to miss the first member for Vancouver Centre, and the Chair doesn't miss him at this time.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I presume there were no aspersions being cast by those remarks from the Chair to suggest that I am in some way distinguished by other than my honourable position in the House.

I want to thank the Provincial Secretary for her response to this matter. I just received a phone call from one of the executive members of that board who was very upset. I'm sure she'll be pleased to know that every effort will be made to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible.

I do wish to debate some other matters with the minister, but as my colleagues were courteous enough to allow me to

[ Page 8516 ]

intercede in order to bring this matter before the House at the earliest possible time, I will now take my seat and wait my turn before I come back to deal with some other matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair actually was referring to the member's presence as a member of this House.

[4:00]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question to the minister, please. It relates to a particular application from the lottery fund about which I wrote to the minister on Match 12 and to which I have received no reply. It deals with an application by the Kitwanga native Indian band in the community of Kitwanga, B.C. The prelude to the letter was a series of telephone conversations with Mr. Orchard, who advised that that was shortly after the minister had been reappointed as Provincial Secretary, that they had a number of matters to deal with and hadn't been able to set a time and have a meeting to deal with lottery fund applications. So I took the course of writing to the minister. I suppose what I need to ask is, what happened to that application?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm not familiar.... I'm so sorry to hear that there's a March letter left unanswered. I'll certainly look into it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to go back to some concerns with regard to the present regulations on bingo that have just been presented by the minister and to refer the minister to a number of sections within those regulations. We had discussed an earlier section regarding an interpretation of the word "charitable." The minister did take the concerns that I had addressed at that time.

To move on to another section, section 2.07 in the present regulations reads: "The licensee will disburse the charitable funds raised through the operation of the lottery directly to the charitable objects set out in the application." One question I had, which is a concern I raised in my December 9 letter to the previous minister, was that under that section there is no time limitation for the disbursement of charitable funds. Obviously that recommendation was not acted on, and I'd like to ask the minister at this time why that has been.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't have the answer to that. I would think that the implication of these regulations always has been that there would be an immediate turnover. I would think that in most cases the charitable organizations themselves govern the collection of those funds. New in these regulations is that somebody from the charitable organization shall always be present in the operation, and I would think that we would be able to at least let it be known to them that frequent collections, rather than having a bank account building up and then turned over with the benefit of interest being given to the operator.... We could certainly suggest that.

I frankly think that they themselves, wanting the dollars so much and wanting the interest on those moneys if they're in the bank for any length of time or for a short time even, will be guided by that themselves. The point is well taken, and it could have been included in that, that it should be turned over by a certain time. What is proper time for those of us to guess would be a question that might be up for dispute. Perhaps they themselves would rather further hasten the payment, and I think they have that authority because they are so close to those operations at the grass roots.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't think the implication is implicit within the statement. In fact, it's wide open. I would suggest to the minister that that is an area that maybe should be monitored in the future.

Moving on to section 2.08, it reads: "Except where the minister specifically authorizes, all lottery-generated funds will be disbursed within the province of British Columbia." A concern that I addressed earlier is that there is no assurance that a percentage of the money generated within a community would be disbursed within that same community, but the regulations completely overlook that fact. One of the major concerns that we have in the interior is that moneys raised through these activities — bingos and casinos — actually be put to work within the communities. Now in many cases, I grant you, they are; but in some situations that money can go outside of the community within the framework of these regulations. I wonder if the minister would like to comment.

HON. MRS, McCARTHY: For some organizations that are raising money for research, for example — for heart, cancer or whatever — they would have to go out of the community because they wouldn't have a research facility in their own community. That would be one example. I can only say that regulation 2.08 is used infrequently. It's used, for example.... The one that comes to mind the quickest is research, where there is something done, perhaps, in Toronto which will be of benefit in the research to people in British Columbia. Once in a while that will be done. It's infrequently used, but it's there to protect us so that we are able to use it when the need arises.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Moving on to item 3.04 in the same regulations, this is probably the item that comes closest to addressing the concern that I have in regard to rental of a facility for bingos. Within the framework of the present regulations there is no minimum regulation for health and safety standards as a prerequisite to the registration of commercial halls, and there is no requirement for such halls to provide access to the handicapped as a prerequisite for registration — again a concern that I had addressed earlier, a concern that doesn't seem to have been acted on. I wonder if the minister would comment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be very pleased to take the member's concerns, and I thank him for his concern. I haven't got an answer for you. They are not embodied in this. I will certainly take it under consideration.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The next section that I would like to address.... It's difficult trying to relate the new regulations to the old ones. Sometimes the numbers are not quite the same.

In the regulations, it does appear that the aggregate value of the prizes does seem to be too large and the charitable component — that is, that money that is going to charities — small relative to the overall value of the prizes. Now the minister has in the new casino regulations increased the charitable component from 35 percent to 50 percent. But in the regulations pertaining to the amount going to charity under bingos, there seems to be a sliding scale that.... I am just trying to find the particular section. Depending upon the gross proceeds, it goes to a maximum contribution of 25

[ Page 8517 ]

percent when the proceeds in a licence year exceed $60,000 or 20 percent if the gross proceeds exceed $20,000 but are not as much as $60,000. It is a sliding scale from 25 percent down to 20 percent and 15 percent.

The suggestion that I had made at that time is that the charitable component, that money which is actually getting into the hands of charity, is too low; that it needs to be increased. The minister has recognized this factor when looking at the casino regulations. Why hasn't the minister recognized this concern regarding the bingo regulations, and why has the minister not seen fit to increase the charitable component relative to the gross proceeds of the function?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it simply reflects the fact that there is a larger disparity. There are larger and smaller bingo operations, and they are more consistent in the other.... That is just because of the simple fact that there are some small operations which, if you had the same ratio, wouldn't make any money at all for the charities. So that's all that that is in there for, and why it is that way.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I am not quite sure whether that actually addresses the question head on. I quite realize that there are different sizes of operations. But it does seem to be in most cases that a lot of the money in terms of organizations that now have to rent from commercial facilities is going into the hip pockets of the hall owners, those individuals who rent the hall. Much of the profit is being bled off by these high rental rates.

As a matter of fact, quite often the charity that is putting on the bingo is in a net loss situation. After paying for the high rent of the hall and the overhead costs attendant with running the games, there is very little, and often nothing, left over for the charity.

My concern is that these regulations don't address that matter. The operators are allowed to charge what I think are exorbitant rates for a hall rental: $300 to $500 an evening, depending upon when it is run. When you have to pay that stringent overhead cost, there is very little left over to give to the charity. That's been the concern right from the outset.

The reason the organizations are having to use the commercial halls is because the capacity and the design of the halls allows them quite frankly to out-compete the old church basement bingos, and they are either put out of business or forced to use the commercial facility. If they are being forced to use the commercial facilities — which I suggest they are, or they just don't operate — then they are being forced to pay very large amounts: $300 to $500 a day for the rental of that facility.

The point I am trying to make very clearly to the minister is that much of the profit, much of the funding that could be going to the charities, is being evaporated in terms of the profits being taken by the renters of these facilities.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, two observations I had made.... The whole idea of the regulations regarding bingo does benefit the charities. The benefit accrues to the charities because of the regulations that were announced.

Secondly, in regard to halls, I am given to understand that the competition for halls is very keen, and that competition will keep the price down. People will be able to move from one hall to another if the rent gets too high, and that is the freedom that they have to choose.

[4:15]

I don't think that you want us to get into dictating the amount of rents for those kinds of commercial operations. They are free to seek out the best deal, and experience seems to show that the competition is so keen that they indeed do.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have to disagree with the minister's statement. The competition is certainly high in terms of competition for the bingo dollar, but what is happening — and I reiterate this — in the communities in my constituency, at least, is that many of the smaller bingo operations that used to run out of their own facility, or have even banded together to run head on against the commercial facilities, are having a devil of a time paying the overhead costs that are required to run the type of facility. They've either gone under because the commercial halls are drawing too much business away from them, or they've had to actually rent from the halls. If they choose to rent from the halls, then much of the profits that were going directly to the charity are evaporating. They're no longer going to the charity, but they're being diverted into the hip pockets of the commercial establishments. I think this is the situation that you'll find happening all throughout British Columbia, where many of the small organizations that used to run their own small halls are simply being put out of business because of the higher drawing power and the advertising power of these commercial halls. The minister might argue that it's the free market working at its best, but I remind the minister of her own statement that bingos and casino-type operations are not to be run as a profit-seeking business. Their initial spirit was for fund raising for charities, and we should adhere to that original principle. What is happening is to the detriment of that principle at this point.

Just in going over a few other sections with regard to bingos, I wonder if the minister can tell me how many bingo inspectors are now in the field and actively involved in regulation of the commercial halls.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There are about 12, and we do intend to increase them.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen the regulations, and it may be that this question has been dealt with, but I understand that there was a regulation that to be a licensee one would have to have been registered as a society for a period of a year. I'm thinking that there have been a large number of charitable organizations and sports organizations acting as licensees in the past, and I wonder whether there's any provision — sort of a grandfather clause — to allow those organizations to register as a society and then to carry on?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In point 2.01 in the regulations it does say that the organization has to be registered for a minimum of 12 months preceding the application and be in good standing at the time of application under the Society Act, and in addition: "...can substantiate with supportive documentation, to the satisfaction of the PGCB, the contribution and service rendered to the community for a minimum of 12 months prior to the application...."

One comes to mind that was brought to me in the last couple of days, where an organization had been doing a lot of good work over many years, actually — a very long time — but realized that they had to become an organized society under the Society Act in order to apply and therefore only then did they make that application. If you adhere to the strict

[ Page 8518 ]

part (a) of that, they would have been excluded and it would be very unfair, so it opens that up now.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I have just one issue that I'd like to talk to the minister about, and it relates to the proposed Campbell River museum. I'm sure the minister is aware — she has talked to Morgan Ostler and Stephanie Tipple and other people in Campbell River about the proposal — that the proposal is for an approximately $3 million facility. All but approximately $400,000 or $500,000 of the funding of this facility was identified and available, given provincial participation. Much of the federal moneys that were promised to be made available were contingent upon the province demonstrating its support by contributing financially. As I say, it's a $3 million project. Between the private sector and various federal agencies, $2.6 million or thereabouts was pledged. The remaining approximately $400,000 or so was initially applied for under the lotteries branch. I guess it must be more than two years ago that the initial application was put in. Despite frequent requests and frequent lobbying on my part and other members of the society, nothing happened and no lottery money was forthcoming.

The government through the current Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) advised the society that they should switch their application from lotteries to the legacy fund, which they did. A lot of this happened prior to the end of the last fiscal year, which is when the federal money could well have run out. As I understand, it's still likely to be available, but it won't last forever. The money is no doubt going to be diverted to other funding, should provincial money not be forthcoming. The only provincial source at the present time appears to be the legacy fund. The application has been in for some time. Members of the society have been down to lobby the minister and other members of the government, including the former minister, with a view to having that particular application approved.

I just want to say to the minister that in her opening comments in these estimates she made much of the value of cultural activities, and if she argues that cultural resources and cultural facilities such as world-class museums, such as is being proposed in Campbell River, are a boon to the tourist industry, she has my full support if she makes that argument. I think that particular project is very important to the tourism industry, not only in Campbell River but also on Vancouver Island.

Curiously in this case, for an expenditure of $400,000 or thereabouts, the government could generate revenues in construction alone, in terms of tax revenues — personal income tax, sales tax and the like — in excess of its contribution. The taxes that would accrue to the Crown, not only directly but indirectly, in the period of the construction phase alone would, I think, more than pay the provincial government's contribution. But certainly because of the increased employment over the years with such a museum in Campbell River, the Crown would be paid back many times over. So would the tourist industry on Vancouver Island and so would the tourist operators in that area.

I don't understand why it is that this particular application has had to wait several years when the concept appears to have the support of everybody; it is opposed by virtually nobody that I can discover. It's a project that generates revenue to the Crown; a project that sucks some money out of eastern Canada, both private and public, which I think is a useful thing whenever we can do that; and is a project that will be of great value not only to the community as a cultural resource but also to the tourism industry on Vancouver Island. Why is it that we can't get the small amount requested of the provincial government for this project?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: May I first address, before I address the member who has just taken his place.... For the record, I see the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) is not here, but he did ask a question regarding rents. I want to clarify that, because there is such a discrepancy between large bingos and small operations on the availability for charities. For the bigger organizations, costs are 60 percent in prizes, which leaves 25 percent available for charity — which takes the 85 percent. Therefore a big organization can spend up to 15 percent for their overhead, including rent, but no more. And that's one of the checks we have on them. But for a smaller group, using the same formula, costs could be 60 percent in prizes and 15 percent to charity, for a total of 75 percent. Therefore smaller organizations cannot spend more than 25 percent on overheads, otherwise they would cut down on the contribution to their own. I thought I should make that clear.

May I now address the very major and very exciting proposal from Campbell River. I was there and had a presentation from them; I saw their model; I was to visit the site. It is a very worthwhile community effort. It can be done in three phases, as you have suggested, and I think that's part of their plan. It is very exciting indeed. I'm most supportive of the program. They did have such a large amount.... I believe that in the beginning they wanted to do it all at once — at least, that was my impression — and it did seem to fit more comfortably under the Expo legacy fund. I believe that it has been sent to the Expo legacy committee, and as a member of that committee I look forward to discussing it.

Frankly I think that in all of these proposals where they are also leaning on federal government contributions, the federal government will — as we would if it were reversed.... Once we were committed to a project, we would surely not let the money dry up while waiting for yet another government.... Funnily enough, it never happens that way. It is usually that we are trying to fulfil a promise made by the federal administration. But at any rate, we have it under consideration. It is a very exciting plan, and most members of our legacy committee actually have visited the site, so I think they are well aware of it. They have done an excellent job, just an excellent job of putting it together, and I commend the volunteer groups that have all pulled together as a unit. It has been an outstanding community effort.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It sounds so good, I am sorry you are out of order. It's Ministry of Education. Keep going.

MR. GABELMANN: Ministry of Education?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, legacy fund. It's a good story, so carry on.

MR. GABELMANN: It's been in the hands of the Provincial Secretary for so long that it is hard to extract it from that ministry.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the community has not only come up with a great plan and an exciting facility proposed, but they have also come up with a lot of dollars. I don't know what the current total is at the moment, but it was

[ Page 8519 ]

well over $300,000 worth of local contributions. From a community the size of Campbell River, that's pretty outstanding and, I think, demonstrates the support of the people there.

But my question is again to the minister, I guess in her capacity as one of the members of the legacy fund. Now I have to do it that way. It's been in front of the legacy committee for months and months, ever since the legacy fund was first established. It went long before this fiscal year — we're talking now February or March at least before it left the lottery and went into the legacy. I think it was even before that. I know that I have been pursuing it with the one staff person there for some months now. They want to start doing something, and I would like to know when can they expect an announcement as to yes or no to this application.

HON. MR. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, you have very rightly pointed out that the legacy committee is under the Ministry of Education. I could not give that information for timing.

MR. GABELMANN: Well then, because the legacy fund appears unable to make decisions — it hasn't for some months now made any decisions — can I ask the minister, would it be appropriate for me to suggest to the people involved that this should go back to the lotteries branch for an application under that program?

[4:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, I would think that you can do whatever you want, but may I just say that it is an unfair criticism of the Expo legacy fund to say that they have been dragging their feet. They did not get that application, I don't think, until I would say April 15, somewhere around there. I may be wrong and out a week or two, but I was in that constituency and saw their proposal, and I think it was after that that it came to the legacy fund.

So I don't think you should be too critical of the legacy fund. They have a lot of proposals, and you yourself said it was a very large proposal, $3 million plus, a lot of money, and we should consider that it would take some consideration for them to approve a grant of that kind. We must give some time for the proposal to go through the committee stages. As I say. I can't give you a time, and it really is not for this ministry right now to discuss. It may well come back to this ministry, and if it does I will be very glad to answer those questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think the committee has allowed adequate latitude on this, and I will have to ask all members to return to the vote of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to talk to the Provincial Secretary about this. Sometimes when a group is told to move from one area to another, there is obviously an overlap, and that is what we've got here in this case.

The application to the legacy fund went in when the minister was Minister of Human Resources, so it is longer ago than the middle of April. I think it was before the year. I think it was still in 1985 when that happened. So I would like her to know that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, that may well be the case, and I am prepared to accept that because there is some sense to that. But members of the society come to me and say: "What's your advice about the quickest way we can get money from the government?" I have to give them some advice. I guess, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the minister, would it be her advice, since it appears the legacy fund is designed to promote election victories in the next campaign, that it is likely that...?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the legacy committee is not within my responsibility as minister responsible for Provincial Secretary and Government Services. Secondly, the wording of the member's question is, frankly, very much out of order. The Expo legacy committee and fund — although I really shouldn't even be discussing it; neither should he — is set up to respond to the legacy of Expo 86 throughout the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair recognizes it's not within the estimates of the minister, and that other explanations would not be in order.

MR. GABELMANN: It's my assumption that the legacy fund money won't be granted until we have an election on the horizon. Therefore I'm wanting to ask the minister what the best advice is that we can give to the members of this society as to where that application should go. Should it come back to the lottery fund, and will money be available through lotteries, as it appears to be for facilities on the North Shore and in other parts of this province? Will money of that magnitude be available from lotteries for this particular project if the application is redirected?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If you're asking my opinion, I think they were given very good advice. I'm certainly not going to give them advice as to what they should do with their application at this point in time. I think they were given good advice to take it to the Expo legacy committee. That's my opinion. I think it was good advice. It's there and it's before that committee. I think other good advice would be that the member would allow the process to take place, knowing full well that it will be given good consideration.

MR. STUPICH: I have some correspondence from an old friend of mine and an old friend of the minister's — although not a political friend of mine — a person who sat in the House as the MLA for Nanaimo for a short time. It raises a question about annuities. He's written a couple of letters to the Hon. Michael Wilson expressing concern about proposed legislation federally that would allow annuitants to collapse their annuities, and would then make the funds therein vulnerable to attack by creditors, as annuities are protected.

In the course of his correspondence he learned that British Columbia and New Brunswick are out of step with other Canadian provinces in that they are the only two provinces that would not continue protection for annuitants in the event that they do collapse annuities and reinvest them. I wonder if the minister has any comment on this. Is the minister aware that British Columbia and New Brunswick are out of step with the rest of Canada in this regard, and if there is that awareness, are there some plans to do something about it?

[ Page 8520 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I want to thank the member for Nanaimo, for giving me advance notice that he would be bringing up this subject. He is correct that British Columbia doesn't presently have pension benefit standards legislation, although we have discussed the matter on many occasions and over a very long period of time. Although the legislation in other jurisdictions is not identical, there is a good deal of similarity, so it is likely that if we produced legislation it would be somewhat similar to that which you have quoted in other jurisdictions.

We do have staff working on pension benefits legislation; it has been discussed, will be discussed further and will be worked on. I would like to assure the member that we appreciate that there are a number of people out there, including a former hon. member of this House, who are very concerned. Thank you so much for bringing it to the House. I will keep in contact with you regarding the future of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to raise the question of the problems of people along the SkyTrain right-of-way through Vancouver and the other communities that it passes through. The health department in Vancouver has looked closely at the question of noise levels. Noise levels have exceeded the promised levels by this administration and their various spokespersons, so that it is indeed a health problem; that is, the noise level exceeds what the city department of health considers reasonable.

I would suggest to the minister that in those circumstances the reasonable thing to do would be to look at some specific proposals that have been put forth by the city and by some of the citizens. Some of the buildings are very close to the right-of-way. The buildings that are most impacted — I would think a handful of them — should probably be bought, because they are very impacted. They have serious problems and potential serious health problems. But that's a relative handful of buildings.

There are others that are still impacted quite a bit, and what should probably be done with those is to provide double glazing or new glazing for those buildings that are impacted. There are others that have their views impacted and their privacy affected, and a range of ameliorating things can be done for them, such as fencing, some improved planting and so on. In some cases, berms could be provided as well. I don't think those are huge capital costs, and probably for an expenditure of about $2 million or so the worst-affected people along the right-of-way could at least have their problems ameliorated to some extent.

I am asking the minister if she is prepared to meet with the affected groups along the right-of-way, and whether she is prepared to look at some modest, ameliorating capital funding to deal with the worst problems in terms of noise and privacy and the like.

I've mentioned to the minister that I think the planning along the line has been a benefit to the whole community, and I know that her activity in that regard, and her energy, has resulted in benefit for the whole community. I commend her for that, not only in private but in public.

All I'm suggesting is that the flowers should be a little higher, the trees should be a little thicker, the windows should be thicker, and the odd property should be acquired, because there is the odd property along there that really is pretty harshly affected. As I said, I don't think there are a lot of them, but there are probably half a dozen or more that have been very seriously affected, and it would be reasonable to look at those.

Double-glazing would have a tremendous effect for a lot of people along that right-of-way, and I don't think that's unreasonable. In view of the fact that the noise levels exceed what was anticipated, that might well be the reasonable thing to, do.

I'm not asking for a commitment from the minister at this stage other than whether she is willing to carry on a dialogue with those affected people and citizen groups from various parts of the area: Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There has been quite a bit of work done already, and B.C. Transit management also received a report on the noise levels from the city of Vancouver. That happened on March 14, based on measurements made between February 12 and 20, and a similar study was conducted by the district of Burnaby in February and early March. I understand that at that time management were aware that individual trains were exceeding the specified noise levels of 74 decibels 15 metres from a four-car train at 80 kilometres per hour on elevated track.

They directed our contractor, Metro Canada Ltd., to take action in January. Engineering design resulted in changes to the tracks and to the wheels on all cars. The retrofit program started in March, and at the time that this report was given to me, May 22, some 50 percent of it was completed. Now that is not very long ago. Completion is expected by the end of this month, June. In addition, the operating company has commenced withdrawing any trains from service at the earliest opportunity if they develop wheel flats, which is their terminology for a flat wheel, making the noise much more profound. We're also investigating other methods of noise mitigation in conjunction with the operating company. A lot of work is being done, and it goes on apace. We do expect significant improvements in noise levels by June of this year, and we're also evaluating mitigation measures at the source that will further reduce noise and improve the system.

When the measurement is again taken in June, when the completion of this program is done, I think you will find a significant change. We believe that this will have a great effect, actually.

[4:45]

I thank you for the comments regarding the parkway. In that heavily built-up area, where one million people live along that line, I think we can concede that we have left it better than we found it, in the right-of-way that we took over, in most cases. Whenever you build a rapid transit system you cannot say that you're not going to have any impact whatsoever. You're bound to have some impact. When one compares other traffic corridors, SkyTrain is less noisy but carries far more passengers. The benefits to the three municipalities as well as Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster far exceed any of the impact that SkyTrain has had.

In terms of contributing to a mobile, liveable city just in itself, a city that is overcoming traffic jams because we are riding above the traffic jams has, I think, had a tremendous impact on our city and the two other communities in which SkyTrain travels. It has increased property values by far around the stations, including the city-owned land which will benefit — and there is quite a bit of city-owned land. There is a possibility for the city of Vancouver and the community of Burnaby and New Westminster, which already has used some

[ Page 8521 ]

of that city land, to assist in adding to the attractiveness of that line.

We will continue to work to reduce the noise in the most effective way at the source, and I hope that in the next month particularly we will find a vast improvement. I have to say that compared with the noisy Kingsway, a traffic corridor like Kingsway, this carries far more passengers than Kingsway would, and in the future has the capability of carrying far more passengers. There is no question that this is a less noisy corridor than any other traffic corridor that we could have placed there.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister says, and it is certainly desirable to cut noise at the source. But at the same time, if you are still above those levels after you have dealt with those source noise problems, then what about this? We're talking about basically a $1 billion system, and all I am talking about is a couple of million in mitigation spending outside of the normal in terms of what you have done so far, in terms of double glazing for those most affected, in terms of some better fencing in key locations and some taller planting. I don't think that is asking a lot on a $1 billion project.

So the question then is: okay, great, if you're going to improve things somewhat in terms of the noise generated by the system, fine. It is true the benefits are significant, but they are spread over the whole community, and the noise impact is limited to a relative handful along the right-of-way. So that is the problem. There are some people who are bearing a heavier cost for this system in terms of environmental impact.

I am asking the minister if she will look seriously at the possibility of some mitigation with respect to the impacted properties.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for me to respond to that question because we are talking about expenditure of a very large sum of money. We are also talking about the possibility that there should be some responsibility, I would think, on behalf of the city and the various communities that are involved. I would not be able to give a commitment. I can tell you that we are forever looking at the noise factor.

The British Columbia Parkway was built because we didn't want to leave a messy area. It's been done in a way that will be not only an attractive corridor for the neighbours to the SkyTrain and the SkyTrain corridor, but it will be a tourist attraction as well.

Now we've really gone the extra Parkway mile, if I may say, to do that, and we have had wonderful cooperation from various organizations, corporate sponsors. Just yesterday B.C. Bearing donated and unveiled a very beautiful square, the B.C. Bearing Plaza at New Westminster. We have had Molson's contribute a running and jogging track. We've had 7-11 stores who have contributed $600,000 for a cycle track. Then there are various groups such as the Boy Scouts and the Canadian Legion — and the Dutch Mile — and the people who have given flags for the International Mile of the Flags, and the Chinese community and the various cultural heritage communities, the Filipino community and Italian community, and many more that I would like to mention and pay tribute to because they have done an absolutely remarkable job of coming forward in a good, voluntary, community way.

I think we have frankly gone the extra mile in that regard. I am quite understanding of what the member for Vancouver East has suggested, and he can be assured that I will continue to keep close to that situation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Fine. I appreciate that. I assume, then, that as new noise readings are taken by the city, she'll consider those in terms of subsequent steps.

I just wonder further, with respect to SkyTrain, whether we might not be doing more in terms of having personnel at stations. There have been recent incidents that are rather disturbing, two involving blind people. One blind person walked into the space between two cars; another walked on, assuming that a train on the other side of the station was one coming in on his side. That's pretty disturbing stuff. I just wonder whether there couldn't be more personnel available in those stations more of the time so that incidents like those could be avoided.

At the heavy stations where we just have these machines for getting tickets and putting money in, I wonder whether again there couldn't be some more backup people and some people actually selling tickets as well, particularly at the busiest locations. It does strike me that there's a case for hiring more personnel just to avoid problem, to make sure they don't occur, and as backup for much of the electronic system presently used.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Regarding the concerns regarding attendance at the stations, we try to have somebody. In fact, it was my understanding that all through this Expo year we would have somebody at every station at all times of service. They may not always be at the place where they're wanted at a specific time, but after that incident with the blind person in the last couple of weeks I reinforced my desire to have someone at the stations at all times.

In addition, I have asked — and it's being implemented — that a very special signal be possible for a blind person to alert the attendant at a station that they're coming into the station. To simplify it, I suggested something just like a doorbell. They would know exactly where it is in every station. By Braille we would let the visually impaired know where that space is in every station so that if they're nervous at all they can have help directly to them. We're hoping to overcome any problems in that regard.

My colleague in Vancouver–Little Mountain was on an advisory committee for the handicapped which planned the accessibility for all physically handicapped. I'm told that the system has really been one of the best systems ever in transportation; it really does adhere to the needs of the handicapped. So we've been quite pleased about that and we're very disappointed that we had this problem with the blind accident at that time. Thankfully the system works, in case anybody does fall in or gets accidentally pushed into it. At the same time, that doesn't make one feel any better: they did live through a very panic-stricken time. So we're hoping to do that.

In regard to the tickets, the problems we have are really with visitors who are not full-time users. They're holding up the system getting tickets because they're not accustomed to using the machines; they have to figure it out. Also, they sometimes have American money, etc. Our answer for that is a more aggressive campaign to make the people of our municipalities....

[ Page 8522 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, hon. minister. Order, please. The Provincial Secretary has been recognized. Other conversations should be taking place outside of the chamber.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In addition to providing more staff to explain the machines, I think we have to have some better means of explaining to the public how much better it is and how much faster if they have the passes and the fare savers. Every time we do some kind of an advertising campaign in that regard, it does assist us. Also, some 400 outlets in the greater Vancouver area sell tickets, so it keeps being added to each and every week as we get more outlets to distribute tickets through.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister would agree that it would be reasonable for the B.C. Transit board to meet with the city of Vancouver or the city's staff or representatives with respect to possible mitigation and improvements along the right-of-way.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member is repeating that which was already answered. Also, there are members representing the municipalities on that board, and the Greater Vancouver.... In fact, the total transportation system throughout the province is represented on that board. I think it's an ongoing dialogue that has been done very well, with not just the city of Vancouver but also Burnaby and New Westminster, and it's really done at a staff level. That information is conveyed to the B.C. Transit board, and there is certainly a lot of dialogue between the city departments and the B.C. Transit board and staff.

MR. WILLIAMS: The specific question is: does the minister accept that they have access to the board, and will the specific mitigation proposals be put to the board?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There is a chairman of that board and they receive the information if the city council.... I know that neither the member who has asked the question nor I have jurisdiction over what the city council of Vancouver wants to do. I know that neither one of us would say that we would dictate to them. If they wish to have a meeting with the B.C. Transit board, neither one of us would have the ability to arrange that. But I do believe that the B.C. Transit board can make decisions as to whom they wish to meet with and consider proposals. What I am sharing with you is the fact that there has been a lot of staff work done on both sides — the city of Vancouver, the municipality of Burnaby and the city of New Westminster — with the B.C. Transit staff. That information usually comes before the board. Particularly if it has some effect on a public issue like this, it would certainly get to the board.

[5:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall...?

The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Shall the member for Coquitlam-Moody speak now? That would be nice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm making my annual commuter rail attack, Mr. Chairman, and if I'm not any more...

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, it's not a sky attack.

...successful this time than I was last time, then I won't be surprised. As the minister well knows, the municipalities on the north side of the Fraser River have for some time — perhaps 10 or 15 years — been very supportive of the commuter rail extension over CPR tracks. There has been, I think, for a period going back at least 15 years all the necessary infrastructure — computerized switching and all this stuff — for a commuter rail service. There has been all kinds of discussion and talk about how expensive that might be, and all the rest of it. Then, of course, we had the diversion of SkyTrain — also as an excuse that, well, we're doing about as much as we can on this matter of commuter rail and it's going to be handled by SkyTrain. The municipalities of Port Moody and Port Coquitlam don't accept this as a reply at all.

I had an opportunity when I was down in Ottawa last July to talk to the Minister of Transport, Don Mazankowski — I knew him from earlier days in my earlier incarnation — and he said he was in favour of it. As a matter of fact, last year the federal government introduced, and I presume passed, Bill C-97. Bill C-97 is a long-needed piece of legislation which requires both CP and CN to operate.... At least, with some sort of an authority over CN and CP lines, they could operate themselves or in conjunction with a provincial authority.... That's the first time a requirement has ever been placed on those railroads. Why? The reason they have done this for the first time is that CP and CN, or for that matter any rail line, could hold a province or a commuter authority up to ransom in terms of costs for such a thing, so that by its very nature it would not be proceeded with.

The local municipality of Port Moody has written to the minister a number of times on this matter, and we've got nowhere. I'd like to know what the holdup on it is. I don't understand this. The feds want it, CP wants it, the municipalities want it. So who doesn't want it? If the minister isn't part of the solution, she's definitely part of the problem — to coin a phrase.

Here's the situation: the use of CN and CP infrastructure required for the commuter authority to operate its rail passenger service is an obligation now on behalf of those rail lines. Now I know what the argument has been. The argument has been: "We will provide a service, a very fancy service, known as SkyTrain. We'll reroute all the bus routes to feed the SkyTrain, to make certain, even if it takes people longer to get to and from work, because we don't want it to flop. It's operating and it's very successful, it's very flashy, and I want it to be a success." That doesn't help the people that I have in my constituency one iota, not one iota.

Park-and-ride and all that stuff may sound fine, but in fact it isn't going to work. It's not going to satisfy their needs. It is a less expensive operation in terms of the investigation that I've been able to do. The provincial government has failed to keep its commitment to the people of my riding and also to the people of Dewdney. The people of Dewdney, people as far up as Mission, of shake and shingle fame, would use that commuter rail. It would lessen the need for widening the highway.

There are all kinds of good reasons to use it. It wouldn't affect SkyTrain. It wouldn't affect the people of Surrey or Burnaby or Vancouver, who need commuter rail, and no one quarrels with that. It is because of the denial of the similar

[ Page 8523 ]

system, a less costly one from all accounts, to my constituents that I make my annual speech. It continues to be frustrating to all concerned. Here's a resolution as recently as November 6, 1985, calling upon the minister....

"The council petitions the minister responsible for transit to directly address this issue forthwith, to inform council of the degree of support, if any, for the proposal and advise the council what steps will be taken and in what time-frame to negotiate with the federal government, to negotiate with CP Rail and to reach a final decision...that the minister be requested to release any information regarding commuter rail which may have been obtained by means of a study in 1985."

The letter to the minister on commuter rail comes up again as recently as March 20. That last one was from the council of Port Moody, many of whom — as a matter of fact, I would say most of whom — are supporters of the minister's own party. It's not a political thing here, or a partisan thing, at all. The member for Mission-Port Moody who was my successor, who is fighting for commuter rail for Dewdney, for Coquitlam and for Mission-Port Moody, is not a member of my party. It's beyond partisanship. It's a service to the people of that area that's desperately needed and wanted.

Here's commuter rail again from Port Coquitlam. Here's another. Here's another letter asking for assistance.

I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to tell us what the state of negotiations is. I said Mazankowski wants it, the federal minister wants it, the local MP wants it, the local MLA wants it, and I presume the member for Dewdney (Hon. Mr. Pelton) would also support commuter rail for his constituents. I'd be surprised if he didn't. Who doesn't want it? Do the municipalities want it? What's the state of negotiations? What's the time-frame, and when are you going to break the good news to my constituents that you intend to proceed?

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate the question. If you can control your people over there, I'll answer it.

This has been given a great deal of study by B.C. Transit. If it were as simple as the member for Coquitlam-Moody has indicated, then one would wonder why it hasn't already been done as he has expressed. Let me tell you, there is more to it than the information he has presented to the House today. First of all, the line that is already dedicated would only give us service in the morning and in the evening. That's one of the down sides to it.

If it were a very reasonable service, one would think, well, we could take some people in who have one place to go and could connect with SkyTrain or the bus service, and it would be a very good suggestion. Except that that would soon bring about a demand for services which could not be fulfilled, because the line is already dedicated for the railroad. Now that's one of the down sides to it.

I guess the most important thing is.... And it's fine to say that the federal government is in full agreement and is even promoting it. It's very easy for the federal government to promote the turning over of a train right-of-way for a use once in the morning and once in the evening. It's very easy for them to do that, because, you see, all they had to really do was change the legislation so that the railroad would have to comply with any application that came their way. What the federal government does not have to carry as a burden, then.... After that step is taken, they simply turn it over to the local authorities, i.e., B.C. Transit, the people of British Columbia.

The operation of that service, limited as it is — and that in itself is a down side — ranges somewhere between $13 and $15 per trip. When one puts that amount of money beside what it costs to provide that operational expense on another service, it is in the range of four times the SkyTrain or the conventional bus service. And if one melds the two, it's really more than four times the cost of operation.

The federal government does not say they will pick up operation. They never have. So of course they're in a wonderful position to say to the member: "Go ahead and put it in." Why wouldn't they? They don't have to pay for it. We have an obligation to provide a service, but not at such a price that you could probably send the people to work or to their doctor, or whatever they use the transportation system for, more reasonably in taxicabs than you could on commuter rail.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: I've heard that song before. I've heard that you could buy a Volkswagen for everybody in the lower mainland rather than spending the money on SkyTrain, too. But if you don't have studies to support that, or you're not releasing any.... Are there studies that make that statement? Are they recent? Are they available? Are they cost-comparative? Are they authoritative? And will the minister release them to the general public?

The councils are calling for the studies to support what I regard as, if not wild, at least exaggerated cost projections of commuter rail as an excuse for not proceeding with it. I don't think the councils accept that. I mean, are these people ninnies, these members of councils? Some of them support your party. Are they absolutely unrealistic? Are they making unreasonable demands? Don't they care about the public purse? These are responsible people. Why would they continually call, year after year, for some assistance in this way if they were totally irresponsible, if they were stupid, if the costs were the same as buying.... I won't make the next obvious comparison; I might get myself into more trouble.

I just think that if there are studies of this nature and they are unbiased, supportable and scholarly and have been done by an economist or somebody who knows what he's doing, then why not release them? This will satisfy these people on the councils. They'll say, "No, it's too rich for our blood. We can't afford it." They find and I find unacceptable some wild figure about costing $15 a ride, or something like that, asserted by the minister without the background studies that we need.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the members are going to continue, let me just answer that. The new federal legislation still means that we have to negotiate a cost with the CPR. They heretofore have been extremely reluctant to give a very reasonable cost. I think the figure I heard a long time ago, before I got into this transit business, was something around the order of $30 million, but for a system that would only go into town in the morning and out to the area in the evening.

The member is correct that we haven't had any studies since the legislation has been changed. As you know, that's been very recent.

[ Page 8524 ]

I don't mind carrying that message to the B.C. Transit board. There are some members on that board who in the past, until they saw the figures of operation, the cost of operation, just all of a sudden found out that it was prohibitive. And frankly, even if it were more reasonable than the figure I've been given, I still think that it's such a limited service. What the member is asking for is a limited service to start with and then an added expenditure later when the demand is great. We would rather put together a transportation plan for the lower mainland and the whole greater Vancouver area that makes some sense for the future, not just a short-term solution at that kind of money. It doesn't make any sense.

At any rate, you can tell that I'm certainly not supportive of it. But if there's any way that my staff can tell me that it can come in any more reasonably due to the legislation, we don't mind taking a look at it.

MR. ROSE: I know that the minister is not supportive, but what I'm concerned about is that I think she's blocking it. That's what I need the reassurance about. I think the people from Dewdney would like to know about this too, because they feel that they have been ignored, while Surrey and other areas have benefited by the bounty of transit spending. Some of them out there in Dewdney and Coquitlam will have long white beards before they get any service from SkyTrain, and they can't afford to wait that long.

CN and CP have to fund the cost of infrastructure and improvements to the extent that they derive benefits. A limited service going out to Port Moody between seven and nine in the morning, and again in the evening between four and six, and you'll see how many cars the limited service would keep off that road. It would be massive as far as Mission.

[5:15]

MR. BARNES: Before I start on the issues about multiculturalism, which I mentioned to the minister earlier, I just wanted to ask briefly if the minister would respond to a matter to do with transportation. I attended a rights and freedoms conference last month, around the 16th, 17th and 18th, put on by The Voice of the Cerebral Palsied of Greater Vancouver — I'm sure the minister is aware of the society. One of the main concerns of that society is transportation. The shuttle system presently in place is apparently being reviewed, and there are negotiations underway respecting its operation. I wonder if the minister could clarify for the committee the present status of those negotiations. One of the main concerns of those present at the conference was whether the service would be diminished because of the margin of profitability taken on by the new management.

It was rather shocking to me to experience what happened at that conference with respect to people's ability to get there on time. I sat for well over an hour watching the attendees come to the site, which was at the Chateau Granville hotel. They came in dribbles as the accommodation was made available. The thing is that these people rely on a shuttle system that requires them to make appointments in advance, several days in most cases. They are certainly not free to operate as impulsively as a person using the regular transit system would be able to do. While I found alarming the amount of planning they have to do for any ordinary routine like shopping, going to the park or visiting with their neighbours or friends, I understand there was a time when people who are dependent on the shuttle system and who have restricted movements due to being in wheelchairs or physically incapacitated in some way have had to wait weeks and even months. They were pointing out that there have been improvements in the transportation system for the handicapped; nonetheless, for a person who has the full use of available facilities, as other taxpayers have in the normal course of events, it still has a long way to go.

I wonder if the minister would comment on the status of that service. Is it likely to diminish as a result of the negotiations for new management, or is there a plan to improve the service?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The service in the Vancouver area to which you refer is increasing. Each year for the last five years it has expanded, and just recently there has been a tendering for contractors. In the case of the contract you mentioned, if I recall, four people tendered for the contract, a 20-month contract, and Pacific Transit Cooperative were the successful bidders. I'm giving you rough figures; I think they serve about 200,000 people in that particular contract, and it's worth about $2 million of public funds. They have about 48 vehicles. In greater Vancouver the custom transit service carries approximately 450,000 handicapped people each year. It's really quite a remarkable system.

You mentioned availability. There is never.... I shouldn't say never; I guess it depends on the way a person orders the service. There may have been instances where something happened, but generally speaking the service is consistently very good, considering that we're talking about a custom service right to the door with people who are accustomed to handling handicapped people and with a vehicle outfitted for all kinds of handicaps. In the whole area there are 95 vehicles, but in the area served by the Pacific Transit Cooperative there are 48 vehicles.

The installation of the computer system and the final phase of that which is now under implementation will really speed up and assist in the service and response.

Also I think that this service was heretofore done five days a week by one organization — just a moment, and I'll give the name of that. The Vancouver Custom Transit Society had that contract for five days and Pacific Transit Cooperative did it over the two weekend days. This is a seven-day service, and those same two firms with two others were the ones who tendered. Pacific Transit Cooperative won the award on their presentation, and it may well be — we have yet to see this; they were assessed for price and maintenance and service, and so on — that having the same group and the seven-day consistency may also help with the effectiveness of ordering and having service received.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, just one more question on that. I neglected to mention in my initial comments that there was some concern about the qualifications of the operators of the bidders, being that those experienced people should somehow be retained because apparently there is a great deal of skill involved in providing this service. Can the minister comment on the continuity of the qualifications of people in this regard?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, the organization that has won the bid has operated a very fine service for five years. There is no reason to believe they won't operate a very good one again.

[ Page 8525 ]

MR. BARNES: I want to reflect now just a bit on the government's programs with respect to the multicultural service agencies in the province. If we go back to the year 1979, the government co-sponsored a conference on multiculturalism with the aim of developing a comprehensive multicultural policy so that a system of programs could be brought about to deal with the province's ever-growing, complex community.

A formal provincial policy still does not exist. The only effort has been to establish a position of cultural heritage adviser, which is actually beyond the government and, it seems, sort of an arm strictly for the government's directives, rather than being available to the multicultural community in a comprehensive or very real, effective way.

I understand that there are only about 12 immigrant service agencies in the province which provide services to non-English-speakers, and they do not receive funds to meet their needs, certainly not at the level that they themselves are requesting. In the fall of 1983 the government, in its restraint program, began to reduce service funds available to these agencies. A 28 percent funding grant in 1982 was reduced in 1983 to 19 percent, in 1984 to 9 percent, representing an overall reduction in funding of well over $350,000. At the present time only one immigrant service agency in British Columbia receives funding from the province, and that's the Mosaic society in Vancouver. The cuts have occurred at a time when workloads have been increased by about 25 percent and staff have had to be cut by about 20 percent.

As the minister knows, these organizations are non-profit. They are voluntary, by and large, depending heavily on what I'm sure the minister has herself recognized as a primary sector of the community: people who, because of their interest and concern about community affairs, have made their time available without remuneration. These agencies as a result are quite cost-effective.

Their objective, obviously, is to try and deal with problems early, in order to prevent the costly social and health problems that result from neglect, and because of this they are very concerned with respect to the government's intentions as far as funding is concerned. In fact, requests have been made over the years for a commitment from the government to provide funding on a sustaining annual basis. The figure of $1 million has been suggested as a global figure, but to date there has been no response and no acknowledgment of this need.

About 44 percent of the children in the city of Vancouver have English as a second language. A 1982 Vancouver School Board survey showed that 13 percent of elementary students and 11 percent of secondary students were receiving insufficient English language instruction. The situation continues to deteriorate, and it is a problem that certainly will cost taxpayers in the future, if not recognized and dealt with by a commitment on the part of the government of the day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm having some trouble with English as a second language being discussed in this vote; and some further problems with immigrant services, which I also do not see covered in this vote.

MR. BARNES: Well, the Provincial Secretary is the chairperson, I believe, for the cultural heritage committee, and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe we're discussing a different type of culture, hon. member.

[5:30]

MR. BARNES: Well, I am speaking of funding that comes through the lotteries branch, and I believe the Provincial Secretary is responsible for that branch. We were discussing that earlier. Is that not in order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The lottery funding, yes. If the member can relate that to the specific group he's speaking about, then that would be in order. I didn't wish to upset you, but I was having problems myself.

MR. BARNES: I certainly don't want to be out of order, because we've had such a congenial exchange today between all members of the House. I wouldn't want to suggest that we were going to depart from that constructive approach.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

I have a few questions though, after those preliminary remarks to the minister. If the minister could respond to them one by one, I would appreciate it.

Does the government have any plans to finally formulate a formal multicultural policy for the province?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Madam Chairman, the member knows that we had a statement embodied in the throne speech which set out the commitment of the government to the cultural heritage program. I would like to state that a great deal of work has been done by the cultural heritage office, and I am very pleased with the work that has been going on.

One of the things that has been very well accepted by those people who are new to the province or new to the community is the "Guide to Resources and Services in British Columbia." I'd like to say that a new guide has just printed, and I'm pleased to tell you about that guide today because, following the one printed in English, it has been done completely in the Chinese language. The first publication came out under my predecessor's leadership about three years ago. Last year's second edition has over 300 pages of valuable information for newcomers to the province. The second English edition has been translated into Chinese, and it will be made available as of today to the Chinese community.

This gives access to the multitude of community and government services available throughout the province. This was created from recommendations from the community and the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. We are now preparing a similar guide, updated as we go, in Punjabi, French, Spanish and Polish. An Italian version has been available for over a year.

These guides are sold to the general public to underwrite the cost. They are $4 each, but they are distributed free to libraries and other institutions and organizations in British Columbia. This is an ongoing program that we carry on, through our cultural heritage advisory program, to assist new Canadians to integrate in British Columbia. That's one of the programs and one of the helps alluded to by the member for Vancouver Centre.

The services that we try to provide are informational, but it goes a little further than information. It brings an awareness of government services to the general public as well as

[ Page 8526 ]

assisting as much as possible people whose first language is not English. As the member has pointed out, there are very many of them.

So I think that the services provided — and the member did mention things such as seminars and that sort of thing — have in the past been well supported by us through the cultural heritage committee and through the cultural heritage adviser. There is a statement in the throne speech that clearly states the commitment we have to the cultural heritage fact, and our adherence to services and awareness in this province.

MR. BARNES: I don't doubt that there is a statement. I can appreciate that there are quite a few statements that are made from time to time. But the question addresses the formalizing of a document which is comprehensive, dealing in detail with the needs of the multicultural community growing out of the 1979 conference that took place prior to that election.

I can appreciate that the minister is making a philosophic commitment to the issue of providing services for the multicultural community, but there are specific things that have to take place in terms of planning, in terms of organizing, in order to provide delivery of services on a consistent, relevant basis, dealing with the different needs in the province.

I would like to ask the minister: has her Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage...? Has the government responded specifically to the request for a $1 million grant to AMSSA, the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies, in order that they can plan their programs and have some sense of stability in terms of their planning? Has the government responded to that?

There is another question I would like to ask the minister. What has the government done with respect to meeting with the multicultural community? There is an indication from my sources that AMSSA has attempted on several occasions to have meetings with the cabinet committee. Three meetings were arranged. The cabinet had to cancel two of them; one of them was inconvenient for AMSSA. AMSSA has attempted to have new meetings arranged, but to date they have not occurred. Could the minister reflect on those?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Last Friday when I was giving t hem the cheque for their program I had a very long meeting with their representatives going over the presentation that they had made to a prior meeting of the cultural heritage committee, and we're certainly cognizant of the presentation. In the meantime, however, there has also been another consideration given to the same cultural heritage committee which is not too far away from their presentation, and we've taken new information from them and also the repeated information, and we will be taking a good look at it. Thank you for the question.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There is no commitment for $1 million at this time. The presentation has been made, and it's being considered.

MR. BARNES: The minister was commenting on the heritage adviser's office earlier. Could she provide for the House the amount of the budget that that branch or department now has, and could she also comment on the $200,000 request made by Mr. Diano last year? I think it was during estimates when Mr. Chabot was Provincial Secretary. The undertaking was that as soon as Mr. Diano was able to provide the specifics of what the $200,000 additional funds would be used for in his office, they would be made available. Were those specifics provided, and did the minister provide those funds after the details were presented to the Provincial Secretary of the day?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't know if I can answer your last question about the $200,000. I think what you're probably alluding to is a system, whereas perhaps an amount of money and $200,000 may be accepted to be spent on festivals, seminars, that sort of thing. It is not ever given out by Mr. Diano, who is our cultural heritage adviser, without the commitment and the advice of the cultural heritage committee or me, as the minister responsible. So it isn't that he has some money that he can give out, but he comes to us, but he has the assurance that his budget for that year for festivals and that sort of thing has a ceiling on it.

I think that's what you're referring to, but because I wasn't here at the time you asked that question before, I'm sorry I cannot be specific. The amount of money is approximately $306,000.

MR. BARNES: Madam Chairman, I like to keep things nice and calm, but I don't know if the minister is aware of correspondence that did take place between me and Mr. Chabot, and I believe she acknowledged the correspondence as well. Mr. Chabot, in fact, referred me to the Provincial Secretary, stating that she was now in that role and assuming that responsibility, so that the question of the $200,000 was never really resolved, although there was a commitment. In fact, I wrote to Mr. Diano asking him to specify his plans in terms of providing that service. He gave the undertaking that it would be dealt with by the Provincial Secretary, and the Provincial Secretary said that it would be dealt with by Mr. Diano. I assume that I was being given what they call in football terms the old smokescreen end run play, because I have yet to find out what happened with respect to this matter — which was, by the way, debated in the estimates last year. We were discussing the $69 million that the lottery fund realized in profits.

It is a matter of concern, and I know that this whole issue of multiculturalism is generally seen as low-profile, except that it is not by any means a service we can take lightly in terms of the real consequences as a result of lack of funding. I won't belabour that point. I think the minister has said that she has no knowledge of it; perhaps she doesn't recall. For the record, I'm stating that the government undertook to deal with it, and I understand it's just not being dealt with.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry, I may have misled you. I wasn't aware of the discussion that you had with a previous minister. Having had this office for a short time I was not aware of your prior discussion. I may not have been in the House during those estimates when you referred to that.

The somewhat $300,000 is enhanced by a $200,000 amount that is available only upon application by Mr. Diano when something comes up during the year. We do not know at the beginning of the year, for example, if a conference on multiculturalism will need some assistance because they haven't told us in advance. They're sort of special projects. Some of them aren't conferences; they're other things, and they fall into the category of assisting those kinds of groups.

[ Page 8527 ]

[5:45]

I think the question is, where would you find out the expenditure of that? I can get that information for you if you would give me the question on the order paper. I don't have that detail today. From memory I can remember a few that I have myself already approved, but I couldn't give you what has gone on last year. I'd be very glad to get the information.

MR. BARNES: The heritage adviser has not been responsive to requests for meetings with the various service agencies in the province. Can the minister comment on why this is so? And does Mr. Diano have as part of his mandate a duty to make his office available upon request for such meetings?

Just clarifying one other point, the minister said she had held meetings with the society in the community. Was the minister referring to the Vancouver Multicultural Society or to AMSSA? I think there was some confusion there. I understand that AMSSA has not had an opportunity to meet with the minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe that the presidents of both organizations were represented there.

As for the allegation that Mr. Diano is perhaps not responding to requests, I frankly think that he responds to very many. I see him in very many meetings, and I think that he serves us extremely well in that regard. In fact, I am always surprised how many evening meetings and weekends.... We know that in the work we are in we have very many meetings, but it is not usually expected of our public servants. I think that Mr. Diano has outdone himself in that regard.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 65...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Aye.

MR. BARNES: You seem to be a little twitchy, Mr. House Leader.

The office of the heritage adviser is in question because, despite what the minister says.... I see Mr. Diano quite a bit myself at public functions on a regular basis, and I know he does get around quite a bit. But I am talking about specific meetings to do with services, Does he respond to those meetings? Is he available to discuss planning with respect to the delivery of services — not social functions, but meetings with organizations to discuss their funding?

Could the minister also advise what records are available to determine how he is spending his funds? In other words, can the societies get information on where the funding is being spent, where the disbursements are being made? One of the concerns is that Mr. Diano, well-intentioned as he may be, has some people who feel he is not available, is not holding those meetings. I would like to know, if we pick up the telephone tomorrow and request that he give a time, that he will be available to meet with some of the societies. Will he be available to do this? What obligations does he have to do so?

I want to thank the minister for her response. I am not satisfied, however, that the needs of the multicultural societies and service agencies are being fully met.

The question of funding is a very real one. The concerns of people who are without representation in many cases, who are having difficulties trying to adjust, to settle and fit into society, is one of those areas of responsibility that is an ongoing problem. It's not something that can be just dealt with by ad hoc grant programs.

I'm urging the government to respond to its commitment of 1979 and the recommendations that were made. They've been discussed in this House in the past. In fact, they've been discussed every year, and there's no point in going over them; but a formal policy does not exist in this province with respect to multicultural services.

The government perhaps recognizes philosophically the needs, but there is no program in place that guarantees a very large segment of the population that their needs will be met. I think that the government has to admit, perhaps for other reasons. that it is just simply not going to provide that service on a commitment basis as a formal policy, as a sustaining service which will reflect, on a cost-of-service basis, maintaining the purchasing value of those grants throughout the years. This is the kind of thing that's missing, and I've seen nothing to indicate that the government is going to do that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Madam Chairman, may I just say that we've always had the commitment that the member expresses, and I'm really proud of what has been accomplished in that regard. I think we have done a great deal. We've done a great deal through the ministries of the government, we've done a great deal in the communities. We have responded. We are not a service agency, and so there is no need for us to attempt in the cultural adviser's office to become a service agency, but to respond to the need in government services and to make those people's lives who come to us for help and those people who are working within the communities, such as festivals, those people who want to bring the awareness of their cultural heritage to the people of British Columbia.... They have been very well supported through the cultural heritage adviser. I believe that the gentleman in question, Mr. Diano, has done an outstanding job, as has his staff, and I believe the government has done an outstanding job in that regard. That commitment will remain, and it will be enhanced as the years go by.

MR. BARNES: Could the minister just tell the committee the names of the societies currently receiving funding through her ministry, and that will conclude my....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It will be in the annual report from Mr. Diano, and that will be tabled in the House.

MR. D'ARCY: I have here some questions regarding transit. Perhaps I could inquire of the House Leader whether he would wish me to proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you be long?

MR. D'ARCY: That depends on the answers I receive from your hon. colleague from Little Mountain.

Perhaps, Madam Chairman, in view of the hour and of the day on the calendar, I'll move the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

[ Page 8528 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table some regulations regarding casino events and the report from January I to March 31, 1985, vis-à-vis lottery grants.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.