1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, JULY 12, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8695 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Cutbacks in health care. Mr. Cocke –– 8695

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary estimates. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 8698

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Barber

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. King

Mr. Mitchell

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 67 –– 8719

Division

On the amendment to vote 68: Provincial Secretary and Government Services –– 8719

Division

On the amendment to vote 69: culture, heritage and recreation programs –– 8719

Division

On the amendment to vote 70: Public Service Commission –– 8720

Division

On the amendment to vote 71: Superannuation Commission –– 8720

Division

On the amendment to vote 72: Government Employee Relations Bureau –– 8720

Division

Ministerial statement re major grain terminal at Prince Rupert.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 8720

Mr. Lea –– 8721

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Agriculture and Food annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 8721

British Columbia Railway financial statement, January 1, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 8721

MONDAY, JULY 12, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. REE:

In the gallery today we have the Henderson clan from the North Shore in

Vancouver. I ask this House to welcome George and Constance Henderson,

and their son George, commonly known as Bo, and his wife Joan

Henderson. George and Constance are from West Vancouver. Bo and Joan

Henderson are supporters of mine from North Vancouver–Capilano. Would

the House please welcome them.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: The

name of Hal Davis is well known to thousands of British Columbians, who

over the years on a Sunday night will listen on CKNW to "Music for

Sunday." Mr. Davis is in the member's gallery today in his new capacity

as president of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters. With

him are two members of his executive, Mr. Walter Gray and Mr. Don

McIntosh, who are from Kelowna and have in common an outstanding MLA in

this House. Would members join me in welcoming Messrs. Davis, Gray and

MacIntosh.

MR. PASSARELL: Yesterday was a tremendous

day: the Italians won the World Cup. Would the House give me leave on a

motion that I have drawn up, seconded by the government House Leader:

that this assembly extends its congratulations and best wishes to the

Italian national soccer team for its thrilling World Cup victory, and

extends best wishes to the Italian people everywhere. Congratulazione

all squadra di calcio Italiana!

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Bene! These excellent and highly conditioned athletes provided the

whole world with the most exciting and superb performance. They're

truly to be commended. I'm delighted to associate myself, and second

the motion of the hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: On behalf of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and myself, we accept this motion for our constituents.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

CUTBACKS IN HEALTH CARE

MR. COCKE:

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. On Friday,

June 25, the minister issued a statement assuring cardiac patients

needing emergency surgery that they will continue to receive

appropriate care. Does the minister wish to amend his statement in view

of the tragic death over the weekend of a Vancouver General Hospital

patient awaiting a coronary bypass operation? He was to go to the

General, but he was actually in Surrey Memorial. That's the statement

I'm asking the minister if he cares to amend.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE:

We keep getting reassuring messages, but.... Dr. Peter Richardson said

that a government funding cutback in health care, resulting in long

waiting lists for surgery, accounted for the death of his patient. Has

the minister now decided to review the funding cutbacks imposed by the

government on the hospital system?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The specific case referred to by the member for New Westminster is one

which staff within the ministry are investigating at my request. The

staff is attempting to reach all persons involved, including the

surgeons in the case and other officials at the various hospitals which

may have been, or could have been, involved.

Ministry

officials have not yet had the opportunity of speaking to all persons

concerned. They have offered some medical information with respect to

this case, and that information is being put together at the moment,

along with additional information believed necessary to properly

analyze the circumstances of this case. It's very difficult to respond

quickly to a situation which is quite complicated. We expect to receive

the information from all the doctors involved in this case, and

additional information from the hospitals which were, or could have

been, involved in this specific case. When that information is

available, I'll share it with all concerned.

MR. COCKE: Much information is available to the minister....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: You're going to make me lose my temper.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Have you got any idea of the seriousness of what we're talking about in this House today?

Mr.

Speaker, the chief of cardiac surgery at the Vancouver General

Hospital, when he had his new unit put in, was reduced from 15 to 12

operations a week. That's 150 operations less per year. Has the

minister decided to give us a statement other than the one that he gave

us the other day reassuring us that all was well?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The question on cardiac surgery has been under consideration

for a long time with the Ministry of Health, the cardiologists, and the administrators

of the three hospitals who specialize in this treatment. The statement referred

to by the member for New Westminster followed a meeting of cardiologists, and

the administrator was in my office some weeks ago.

The

Vancouver General Hospital is funded to perform 15 surgical procedures

a week; the hospital itself has had difficulty in achieving that total

for a number of reasons, some of which involved staffing. Statistics

are being compiled with respect to the number of procedures which have

occurred in the province over the past number of years with respect to

the increase in the number of cases and surgical procedures performed,

along with information relative to the waiting lists which are with us

today in our province. Attempts have been made to coordinate through

the three hospitals which perform the surgical procedures how they may

be able to increase their numbers. In addition, the hospitals,

cardiologists and others involved are attempting to determine how

[ Page 8696 ]

they

can assemble the necessary teams required to perform a greater number

of surgical procedures than they are physically capable of handling at

this time.

MRS. WALLACE: And in the meantime people are dying.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The case is very serious, which is obvious to all. The member for

Cowichan-Malahat says: "In the meantime people are dying." Mr. Speaker,

I will not accept that type of statement from a person who has no

knowledge of the case.

MR. BARRETT: Are you saying the doctors are lying?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I will not listen to the Leader of the Opposition, who may recommend

that his members on that side make statements without checking into the

information or background of the case.

MR. BARRETT: Are you saying the doctors are lying? Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition to come to order, and I'll ask the minister to conclude his response to the question.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, in any individual case there is a tremendous amount of

specific information that must be obtained in order to determine the

facts of the matter.

MR. BARRETT: Are you saying the doctor is lying?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The people within the Ministry of Health accept their responsibilities

most seriously and intend to investigate the circumstances of this

case. We will not accept statements made without knowledge by members

on the other side of the House. We expect to have additional

information soon, when the responsible medical people are available to

comment on the case. Following that, the information will be made

available.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have just one

other example. The director of cardiac surgery at Royal Jubilee —

that's here — said that the expansion of the cardiac facility approved

twice by the Health ministry had to be cancelled when the restraint

program was announced. Has the minister decided as a result of that to

give us something more than this reassuring statement?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, just a few weeks ago a meeting

was held with the cardiologists and the administrators of the three

hospitals in British Columbia where these operations are performed, in

an attempt to determine how they could expand their program, thereby

reducing the waiting lists. The cardiologists and the administrators at

that time took it upon themselves to assist the ministry in supplying

such information as may be necessary to accomplish this. That attempt

to increase the number of surgical procedures, thereby reducing the

waiting list for the patients, is underway. We hope we'll have

information relative to the capability of these three institutions to

increase their open-heart surgery capability.

One of the

administrators, upon being asked when they could increase their

capability by 25 percent, advised that it would probably be in a year's

time, because of the difficulty of assembling the necessary surgical

teams and technicians to assist in these operation procedures. So it's

obviously something that is not changed overnight. Efforts have been

made to try to resolve the problems which have been identified. With

respect to this specific case, we're awaiting information.

MR. COCKE:

Government cutbacks have also eliminated vital programs for disturbed

adolescents in our province — for instance, the closure of the child

and family unit of the Eric Martin Pavilion. Now we're told that the

entire adolescent unit at the new Children's Hospital will be put on

hold, resulting in the elimination of a very successful program for

disturbed teenagers and some potential suicides. Has the minister

decided to provide the Children's Hospital with the necessary funding

to open the adolescent unit now, and not wait for the consultants' —

Ernst & Whinney's — report on the hospital?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Regarding the Children's Hospital, which has just opened in the city of

Vancouver, ministry officials have been discussing the matter of

funding for the hospital for some time. It was agreed that an

independent consultant would be utilized to try to determine the level

of funding required for the first year of operation. The hospital is in

a transition stage — moving from their old premises to the new — and

new programs are being introduced while others are being modified. The

question of the Children's Hospital is, I believe, in good hands at the

moment, with the consultant and cooperation between the Children's

Hospital and the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed that the member for New Westminster is now predicting children's suicides.

MR. COCKE: I am not going to deal with what the minister just said — that's totally irresponsible.

Mr.

Speaker, there are now fewer beds for sick children in this province

than there were before the new Children's Hospital opened, thus placing

sick children in B.C. at risk. We're replacing 240 beds with 189. It

was supposed to go to 250 beds. What steps has the minister taken to

restore the number of beds for pediatric care, at least to their

original level?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the

question of the funding and bed level at the Children's Hospital is the

purpose of commissioning an independent consultant to review their

needs.

The member for New Westminster again states that

people are at risk, as he did with respect to the Mackenzie hospital,

when he was proved to be completely incorrect in saying that the health

of the community was at risk.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that

members on that side are continuing to make wild statements without

research. I trust that there will be no apology tomorrow.

[ Page 8697 ]

MR. COCKE:

I'm not going to take that from that member for taking my

responsibility seriously in this House. I'm going to ask him a

question. When is he going to quit knuckling under to the Premier on

this whole question and do something himself in terms of getting

hospitals back on a...?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I heard part of the question that the member offered, Mr. Speaker. The

member for New Westminster, who apparently believes that ill health and

fear is good politics no matter what the age of the citizen may be,

continues to, in my opinion, play games with the health of the people

of this province for political reasons.

The budgets for the

hospitals in the province of British Columbia this year are, as

everyone knows, at a record high. The demand for health services in

this province is also at a record high. A very serious attempt is being

made by people in the medical and health professions to coordinate the

resources available to the people of British Columbia for health care.

They are generally doing an excellent job.

There will be

occasions when situations with respect to health care will be brought

to the attention of the public, and there will be

interpretations

placed on them, depending on your intent. The people of British

Columbia have a high-level, quality health-care system. The people who

are responsible for the delivery of health care in our province have

the expertise, dedication and capability to deliver that.

There

are situations which will occur because of the hundreds of thousands of

people who come in contact with health service each day in our

province. As they occur and are brought to our attention, they are

investigated. I feel that it is a disservice to the people of the

province to try to alarm them unnecessarily for whatever purpose.

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to direct a question to the government House Leader.

Especially in light of the revelation given during question period

about the serious deteriorating state of health care in this province,

has the minister decided to call Health estimates this afternoon?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to inform the hon. member that if he would

have had a chat with his Whip, he would have received the order of

business this morning.

MR. HOWARD: My point of order is that the minister refused to answer the question and refused to call Health estimates.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 67: minister's office, $191,744.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I'd like to point out to the Chair that vote 67 is not the Ministry of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations deliberately went out of his way....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. members.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman stood, and there was some serious discussion after that, which is unparliamentary.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Accordingly,

under standing order 20, I'm going to ask the hon. Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) to leave the committee and withdraw for this

afternoon.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: A shameful performance, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's exactly what's going to happen. It appears

that under standing order 20 the chairman's responsibility is to report

this to the Speaker.

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Speaker, during committee the Chairman asked the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations and the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw

under standing order 20. There appears to be some reluctance on the

part of the hon. member for Skeena. I have nothing left to do, sir,

except report this to you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this

time, it having been reported to me that the House Leader and the

member for Skeena have been asked to withdraw, under standing order 20,

wherein the Chairman has the authority to do so, I now must ask the

member for Skeena.... There is no point of order, hon. member; there is

no discussion.

[ Page 8698 ]

MR. HOWARD: The Chairman did not cite standing order 20, and there was no disorderly conduct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: You are doing this House a great disservice, Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the report of that Chairman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, the government House Leader and the member

for Skeena, as was reported to the Chair by the Chairman, were

instructed to leave the committee. Under standing order 20, I have no

alternative but to instruct the member for Skeena to withdraw from the

chamber at this time.

MR. NICOLSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, there is no point of order and there is no

discussion of an order from the Chair under standing order 20. I will

review the Blues, hon. member, and if it is incumbent upon the Chair,

appropriate corrections will be made.

At this time I instruct the member for Skeena to leave the chamber.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, if when you look at the Blues you find that you are in error, what do I do?

MR. BARRETT: What does he do then?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no discussion; there is no debate.

Sergeant-at-Arms.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, having risen from committee to report

to you, Mr. Chairman stated that he had no authority. If one reads

standing order 19 or 20 we see that the Chairman does have the power to

name a member; he did not do that. He said that he had no power to act.

He certainly did not follow the procedures laid out in standing order

20, which says:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman,

shall order members whose conduct is grossly disorderly" — if that's

the way they feel — "to withdraw immediately from the House during the

remainder of that day's sitting; and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on

such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of any

resolution.... But if, on occasion, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, deems

that his powers under the standing orders are inadequate, he may name

such member or members, or he may call upon the House to adjudge upon

the conduct of such member or members."

Mr. Speaker, this

procedure is irregular. The Chair has claimed that it had no power to

act. The Chair did not exhaust the remedies available to it in

committee. I would ask you to review this matter. It's often said that

the Speaker has no knowledge of what goes on in committee, and that

matters in committee must be resolved in the committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The comments made by the member will certainly be taken into consideration by the Chair.

MR. LEA: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matter of that particular incident is concluded.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned last week in a point

of order pertaining to the process in the House regarding whether or

not the opposition and the government are treated with equality, I

would ask that for those instances that have happened during Committee

of the Whole House — I know that you can't do it when we're not in

Committee of the Whole House — you check the Hansard record of

the House to ascertain this: there have been members of the opposition

who have been asked to leave the House for breaking the rules of the

House, without a government member being asked to leave at the same

time. What I would like you to do, Mr. Chairman, is to check the

record. I think you'll find that never in the history of this

government over the last six years has a government member ever been

kicked out of the House without an opposition member being put out at

the same time.

Mr. Chairman, when you stood in your place, I

noticed that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) sat and said nothing. I

noticed that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) was not standing in the first place, but he continued to talk

while you were standing; but you kicked them both out. It appears that

the Chairman will not kick out a government member unless an opposition

member goes, in order to lighten the political blow to the government.

I'd ask you to check the records to see whether I'm not telling the

absolute truth. Never has a government member gone without an

opposition member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The comment is

reasonably well taken. The Chairman gives the committee the assurance

that I will undertake to look at the Blues and the records of sessions

past.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 67: minister's office, $191,744.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, if one didn't know better, one would get the impression

that members are not anxious to discuss the estimates of the Provincial

Secretary. In any event, I'm happy to proceed with discussion of these

estimates, which were anticipated and which the opposition were advised

of prior to coming to the House this afternoon. I'm sure they are well

prepared to debate and discuss them.

It's a pleasure to be

able to make a few comments on this widespread and diverse ministry

which covers a great many aspects in British Columbia. First, I think

it's important to appreciate that the overall budgetary increase in the

estimates of the Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government

Services is only 6 percent. While maintaining the services that British

Columbians have come to expect from this ministry, we have been able to

keep the growth in total costs to only

[ Page 8699 ]

percent. It's important to note that over half of the ministry's

estimates are represented in the costs of administering the

superannuation commission and paying the pensions of public servants.

an example, to emphasize our belief in getting the best possible value

for the tax dollar in the past year, the Queen's Printer has managed to

reduce government printing costs by some $1 million. This was made

possible by installing new automated press and bindery equipment, which

reduced labour costs; by installing a new two-colour press capable of

doing two-sided work at extremely high speeds; and by using lighter

grades of paper where possible to achieve savings in printing and

postage. The Queen's Printer is making great strides in improving their

efficiency and reducing costs. Individually these are small items, but

they do add up. Another area open for savings includes all office

supplies: pens, file trays, wastepaper baskets and folders. They are

small items, but in the past two years savings on these common office

items have ranged from 10 percent to 50 percent. The result has been a

general saving of 30 percent on more than 1,200 items purchased by the

Queen's Printer, a dollar saving of $540,000 over the past two years.

One

last item is photocopiers, which are common pieces of office equipment.

This year, $68,000 will be saved on photocopier paper alone. By

providing suppliers with a standing order rather than buying in

10-tonne lots, we're saving 6.8 percent, or some $68,000 on paper this

year. That's a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of

government, but those drops are filling the bucket. It is the intention

of my ministry, which is responsible for so much of the day-to-day

office supplies used by government, to make sure that British Columbia

taxpayers get the best value for every tax dollar spent on their behalf.

the members readily know, there's probably no other ministry

responsible for such a widespread range of programs. Recreation and

sport, lotteries, voting, libraries, culture and heritage conservation

are just a few of the areas for which the Provincial Secretary and

Minister of Government Services has responsibility. For instance, once

again the British Columbia Games have involved thousands of our

citizens. It is with a great deal of pride in this province's athletes

and volunteers who make the B.C. Games happen that I stand in the House

and say today that the B.C. Summer and Winter Games are not only the

largest athletic event in Canada; they are also the largest

participation project in our country. In the past 12 months, some

200,000 British Columbians between the ages of 13 and 80, from all

parts of B.C., have been involved in the playdowns to these games. The

Summer Games in the Comox Valley and the recent Winter Games in Trail

have set some new and very high standards for future host communities

to follow. I'm sure the members for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and

Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) will join me in applauding the community

spirit that made each of these games a tremendous success. In fact,

with the Winter Games in Trail, for the first time ever in the B.C.

Games the number of volunteers for a single games surpassed the 3,000

mark. This summer 3,760 athletes in 36 sports will travel to Vernon for

the 1982 Summer Games. Next to the 1976 Olympics, this will be the

largest sports event in the history of Canada. The number of

communities bidding to host the games, the number of athletes and the

number of volunteers is growing every year. I know that members will

agree that lottery funds spent on the B.C. Games are wisely invested

and provide a unique opportunity for athletes and volunteers of all

ages.

While I'm on the subject of community spirit, Mr.

Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not provide members with an update

of the first-ever British Columbia Festival of the Arts, which took

place in Kamloops this last month. I announced the festival last year

as the cultural equivalent of the B.C. Games, and this first-ever B.C.

Festival of the Arts brought our province's musicians, dancers, visual

artists and actors together at one place and time, highlighting the

tremendous artistic talent that exists in British Columbia and the

community spirit that supplied 800 local volunteers in Kamloops to

organize everything, including transportation, meals, security and

accommodation. Throughout the province, in local and regional festivals

leading to Kamloops, almost 150,000 British Columbians were involved.

From these individuals 1,500 went on to compete and perform at the B.C.

Festival of the Arts — a unique celebration in Canada. Like the B.C.

Games, the B.C. Festival of the Arts is funded by British Columbia

lotteries and offers a unique provincial stage for our talented

citizens. As I said at the closing ceremonies, lottery proceeds spent

on the festival will pay cultural dividends for many years to come.

program involving even more British Columbians was the recently

completed enumeration. Thanks to public enthusiasm and the computerized

collating system, the new list was completed almost six weeks earlier

than if it had been done using the old addressograph system. This new

process has saved almost $500,000 compared to the old process, and

ensures an accurate and up-to-date voters' list. More than 1,000,575

registration cards were received. I should point out that anyone who is

eligible can still register at any time. In addition, we now have

before the House amendments to the Election Act, which we have already

been dealing with and will be further debating in committee.

further item mentioned in the throne speech was pensions. Although

pensions are a far-sighted topic, it is important that British

Columbians and their government prepare for the future by recognizing

pension needs far in advance of an individual's actual retirement.

Throughout the country the pension issue is the subject of considerable

discussion, and there is quite a degree of consensus as to the problems

which require attention — for instance, the need for more portable

pensions in light of today's highly mobile employee, the need to ensure

better pension protection for women, the need for pensions to be

guarded to a degree against the impact of inflation, and the fact that

costs will continue to multiply as the ratio of workers to retirees

becomes even smaller. I recently introduced a Green Paper which asks

British Columbians for their consideration and suggestions. I hope this

paper will encourage individuals to work with government in developing

a timely and effective pensions policy. I look forward to receiving

practical comments from both sides of this House, from the pension

industry, and from any citizen who is interested in this subject.

Mr.

Chairman, an area we can all take a great deal of pride in is British

Columbia's growing reputation in terms of sport and recreation. My

ministry's recreation and sport branch is playing a key role in not

only helping to develop high-calibre athletes, but also providing

opportunities throughout this province for British Columbians of every

age. For instance, the Premier's sports award program involves some 400

schools around B.C., giving children between the ages of 8 and 12 the

chance to learn basic skills in nine different sports.

[ Page 8700 ]

Its chief aim is to develop talents and build personal confidence — skills these youngsters can enjoy for a lifetime.

addition, Mr. Chairman, the recreation and sports staff have completed

a full program in preparation for the 1983 Canada Winter Games in

Quebec. I anticipate more than 200 of our province's best athletes will

be there, well-prepared to represent their home province. If last

year's Canada Summer Games in Thunder Bay are any indication, our

athletes will demonstrate some exceptional individual and team

performances. The determination and enthusiasm of B.C.'s athletes is

reflected in some tremendous gold medal performances by individuals and

teams. I'll just mention a few: diver Kathy Kellemen; track and field

stars Rob Lonergan and Mike Mahovlich; and our province's basketball,

soccer and womens' field hockey teams. That sort of team spirit is sure

to be exhibited at the Winter Games next year in Quebec, Mr. Chairman.

Under

the subject of cultural heritage, we can say that this is well known to

our members. Each of us appreciates that British Columbians came from

many different places around the world. They chose Canada, and

particularly B.C., as their home. Some months ago I announced the

formation of a Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee headed by a

well-known citizenship court judge, Norman Oreck, to study the report

of a Vancouver conference on multiculturalism. I'm pleased to say that

Judge Oreck and the committee have completed this report and presented

it to the cabinet committee on cultural heritage. The report includes

numerous recommendations, and while some require more discussion,

others can be implemented right away, including the suggestion of a

newcomer's guide and a consultative council representing B.C. cultural

communities. I want to thank the members of the advisory committee for

their enthusiasm and hard work in putting their report together; they

certainly did an excellent job.

Mr. Chairman, one of my

ministry's most popular provincewide programs is in the area of

assistance to public libraries. British Columbia is recognized by other

provinces as having the finest level of public library service in

Canada, something we can all take a great deal of pride in. I'm pleased

to announce that grants to our province's public libraries will

increase this year from $5.5 million to almost $6.2 million.

Consequently, the per capita grant to communities will increase to

$1.60 based on the new census figures. Communities that show tremendous

growth since the 1976 census will receive significant increases. Areas

such as Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley and the East Kootenays have

grown by up to 20 percent in the past five years, and the new per

capita grants will reflect that growth. Although our province is having

difficult economic times, Mr. Chairman, the government recognizes the

importance of library services, and I can assure the members of this

House and their constituents that it is our intention to maintain

support for libraries throughout B.C.

These are just a few

of the programs administered by the Provincial Secretary. As you can

see, they involve services to hundreds of thousands of British

Columbians and cover so many different aspects.

Before

I take my seat, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recognize the work done by

the many staff members of my ministry and congratulate them. I'd like

to observe the excellent job done by my assistant deputy ministers:

Jerry Woytack, Barry Kelsey and Allan Turner. All three are known to

most of the members on both sides of the House. I'd also like to

mention Mr. Dolezal, president of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, who

performs an excellent service in providing all the information required

on the Buildings Corporation. I won't fail to mention and include in

that comment the job being done by the chairman of the Public Service

Commission, Bill Long; the chairman of the Government Employee

Relations Bureau, Mike Davison; the head of the Superannuation

Commission, Mr. Jim Reid; and Doug Heal, deputy minister of government

information programs, well-known to all members of this House.

So,

Mr. Chairman, those are just a few observations on the many and diverse

activities of the Provincial Secretary. I'll take my seat and look

forward to questions.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman,

first of all I'd like to thank the minister for taking the time to give

a rundown on his ministry in some detail. There is no question that in

every ministry there are some positive things being done, whatever the

government. I would be the first to say to the minister that we

appreciate any increase given to the libraries — which he pointed out —

and I wish to discuss that in more detail with him later; there are

other aspects I'd like to question him on.

We're also

pleased that the minister has pointed out to the House that attempts

are being made — in the light of the economy — to cut down in the costs

of the Queen's Printer. Those things are appreciated by all of us. When

the members of the opposition take their place in debate, I think it's

unfortunate that the people presume that we are here only to criticize.

Now

that I've pointed out a few of the positive things the minister has

done, I also want to take my other role as a member of the opposition,

which is of course to criticize some of the aspects in any minister's

area which cause us concern as members of the opposition. We are

reflecting in debate the concerns of people in the public who have come

to us and expressed their concerns. In the overall framework, that is

the way I hope to attack estimates, and have attempted to throughout

the past years.

I would like to move to areas under the

jurisdiction of this minister that are of particular concern to me and

to many other people in this province. This minister, as I believe I

said last year.... I know my words are remembered by everyone in this

House — the words that I stood up and said during the Provincial

Secretary's estimates last year. I know Mr. Chairman remembers them. At

that time I opened up the debate with the same suggestion of concern —

and more than suggestion, with facts to back it up — in the whole area

of partisanship, what might be called and is really misuse of the

taxpayers' money by the government in the area of government propaganda.

brought this to the attention of the minister last year. On behalf of

the opposition I expressed our concern that this minister has under his

control a huge propaganda weapon. It was never so until, in the last

year or so, for some reason the Social Credit government, out of

concern that they may be facing trouble at the polls at the next

election, decided to centralize all the government information services

under this one minister. I know the minister will probably stand up and

tell us that this is done for efficiency, but it also sends a tremor

throughout the people of the province who are concerned about these

matters. It has an aura about it of Big Brother government, an attempt

to brainwash the people of British Columbia. That should be done, and

we expect some

[ Page 8701 ]

that brainwashing to take place, prior to election campaigns, using

partisan moneys of the different parties. But there is one thing that

on behalf of many other citizens I will continue to object to: that is

when any government almost wantonly decides that when given money to

use for the benefit of all the citizens of B.C., they may take chunks

of that money and use it to further their own political purposes.

brought this to the minister's attention last year, and strangely

enough, the minister has certainly not curtailed any of this overt use

of government money for political purposes. Instead we find that now

this minister has further centralized and gathered together a massive

propaganda machine.

There are two areas that point to that.

First, extensive powers have been given to his deputy in charge of

public information. He is now apparently in charge of gathering

together all the ministry's propaganda — or government services, as he

may call them, information. I really must say most of it is government

propaganda, used entirely to embellish the particular minister who the

material is emanating from. It is all gathered now under one person.

That was starting to be done when I spoke last year, but now we find

that that has gone even further. Now we find that one sole advertising

agency has been given the full responsibility for centralizing all the

provincial advertising within the government. No matter how many times

the minister may get up and attempt to profess that this is done in the

interests of efficiency, Mr. Chairman, the public perceives this as an

attempt by the Social Credit government to centralize their propaganda

material. The very fact that the person chosen head of this centralized

advertising for all the ministries in this province happens to have

connections with the Social Credit Party does not allay our fears.

Everyone has a right to belong to a party. But surely it is a very

insensitive government that decides to appoint someone with close ties

to the Social Credit Party to be in charge of all their centralized

advertising.

It has about it an aura of a gigantic

propaganda machine being set up for the coming election, but it is also

eliminating all competition from the other advertising agencies. This

is really amazing coming from a government which has always professed

to be the free enterprise government of this province.

Here

is another example of their complete totalitarian method of governing

this province, under this minister, who appears very innocuous. He

talks about arts festivals, drama, and sports festivals, which we all

applaud to some degree, although we will have questions on them later.

But believe it or not, in that minister's hands is a gigantic

propaganda machine, Mr. Chairman. I hope that today the minister is

going to be able to stand up and allay the fears, not only of me as his

critic but of many people in this province, that the Social Credit

Party will benefit from that machinery set up by the Social Credit

government to further their fortunes in the next election.

have a couple of specific questions on this area for that minister. I

have in front of me — and I'm sure we've all seen it — the "B.C.

Spirit" logo. This has suddenly appeared all over the province of

British Columbia. It appears on all the government literature that is

going out. It appears in most of their newspaper advertising. It

appears on the ships we know — the ferry fleet. You name it, we are

seeing the logo everywhere. Nobody has anything against that particular

logo, although obviously it is not original. I have almost a duplicate

copy of the logo used in Ontario, so it certainly shows us that with

the importing of these people from Ontario into the Premier's office,

obviously they are bringing with them ideas from Ontario which they

presume will work here in British Columbia. Well, time will tell.

Mr.

Chairman, what I specifically want to ask that minister is this. How

can you assure not only me and the NDP but the Conservative Party, the

Liberals, and any other party that may run in the next election, that

that logo is not going to appear everywhere on Social Credit Party

literature? Secondly, when you keep using this logo on the tremendous

amount of material that comes from the various ministries, how are you

going to differentiate between that logo talking about the government

of B.C. and the Social Credit Party of B.C.? To some people it may seem

rather nit-picking on my part to be discussing this particular logo,

but to my mind it is symbolic of the Social Credit government that they

fail to see that there must always be a very distinct line between what

is used by a party and what is used by the government, if that party

happens to be in power. Surely that is a matter of basic political

ethics.

Mr. Chairman. nothing that that minister has done in

the last year allays my fears that he has no concern whatsoever about

this overt partisanship that he and his government indulge in, because

they are fuzzing the line between political party and government. Once

that happens, Mr. Chairman, it becomes very dangerous, because the

public is soon going to be confused also. That government has a

responsibility to use the taxpayers' money judiciously and economically

in a non-partisan way. I'd like the minister to tell us a little more

about the use of this logo. We want assurances that this is not going

to be used on a partisan basis in any way. I'm asking about something

that I'm afraid has already been done. At the moment the lines are

becoming very blurred. It's very dangerous. That minister now has more

than $20 million at his disposal to spend on government advertising. I

think we would like to hear from the minister just how much of that

money he's intending to spend this year. I'd also like to hear from the

minister about what it's going to be used for.

I would also

like to ask the minister if he thinks that, particularly in an election

period building up to an election time.... Some people are beginning to

wonder if this government will ever call another election. Obviously

we're getting into the last lap. What is he going to do to ensure that

the moneys...?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Two more years!

MRS. DAILLY:

Well, two more years — that's fine. Let's just hope that in the next

two years the money entrusted to the Social Credit government is not

used to try to make sure that they'll become the next government. We

don't want the money which has been entrusted to that minister to be

used for any partisan purposes whatsoever. We've got to hear that from

that minister. Even though he may assure us in this House, I want to

tell him that he and his government are going to be watched very

closely not only by me but by all people in this province.

know I'm not to refer to pieces of legislation, but I have just placed

a bill on the order paper. I'm sure you have all read the title, which

has to do with the elimination of partisan advertising by government.

Sadly, it has reached the point where such a bill is necessary in some

places. I regret to say that I have to introduce such a bill in this

House. It's only because of this government's actions in the past few

years that

[ Page 8702 ]

have felt it necessary to place this bill on the order paper. I know

the government will also agree that this bill is important, and they

will no doubt call and pass it before the end of this session. Any

government interested in running their government in an impartial way,

using the money in a way that will benefit all the people and not just

their own political party, will ensure passage of my bill.

Mr.

Chairman, I've got a lot more questions to ask the minister. But at the

moment I want to deal primarily with the biggest concern we have with

this minister: the power vested in his ministry, maybe by his Premier,

to set up a propaganda arm. That leads me into the area of lotteries,

which is going to be followed up.... By the way, my concern about the

propaganda arm of this government will be followed up by the member for

Victoria; following that, hopefully, we will have the other member for

Victoria following up on our concern over partisan use of lotteries.

But before I take my seat to allow them to move into this very

important area, I would simply like to say to the minister, because

we're going to move into it in more detail, that the other area of

great partisanship — what I consider, again, not using the people's

money properly — is in lotteries.

You know, I feel like a

broken record. For at least the last six years I've been up on my feet

asking for a complete cleanup of the ways lottery grants are dispensed

in this province. It started back when the first member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was Provincial Secretary

and changed the whole Lottery Act so that it allowed for these special

grants to be made. As you know, we have never quarreled with grants

being made on the basis of committees selecting the recipients — grants

for art, culture and medicine. Well, there are a few things there I

want to discuss later, but at least they have a structure. The grants

which the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the present

Minister of Human Resources, brought in were brought in so they could

be dispensed by the minister in charge of this, without any criteria

and without any public disclosure of whom the moneys went to. Mr.

Chairman, do you know how much money has been dispensed through the

Lottery Fund since 1975? Over $50 million. Some of that money is quite

open — we know what happened to it; we know how it was sent out. But

there is a large amount of that money that raises some serious

questions about that minister and his government using lottery funds on

a partisan basis and for the promotion of their own political fortunes.

The

ombudsman happens to agree with me after a major study. I brought this

up with the minister before. I'm not going to bore the House by reading

all his recommendations again, but in the report of the ombudsman,

where he made some very cogent remarks, expressing the things that I

had said in this House over a number of years — it's interesting that

he never once even asked me for my opinion, so he obviously arrived at

this after due study of citizens who had put in complaints about the

Lottery Funds — he said: "Until this government sets up an advisory

committee to dispense these funds, they will always be open to

suspicion that they are using it to promote their political fortunes."

That minister, for some reason or other, simply does not show any concern for

establishing such a committee. My question again to the minister — it's

the sixth time of asking, but not necessarily that minister — is: why will you

not set up an advisory committee which will dispense the Lottery Funds in a

fair, open way, with all criteria listed, so that everyone has their questions

answered and knows why they're getting — and perhaps why they did not get

— a lottery grant? Why won't you set up this committee? Why do you still

want to maintain it out of your office — this discretionary right to hand out

lottery funds? You may say that it's done through this and it's done

through that, but you have shown by one action alone in the last few months

that your attitude to the dispensing of lottery funds is entirely a Big Brother

attitude.

is absolutely amazing that that minister actually believes that he can

walk into a town in our province where he sees a bowling game on and

suddenly decide that he wants to give some money to the community group

that is sponsoring the bowling tournament. In this case it happened to

be the Big Brothers. We're all in favour of the Big Brothers, but can

you imagine that that minister suddenly decided, while he was watching

this bowling game, that he was going to give them $1,000 out of the

Lottery Fund? Isn't it interesting. It wasn't political at all; he was

only bowling with the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond). It's strange

that he hasn't gone to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King),

for example, or to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and had a

bowling game with them in order to hand over some money to the lottery.

But

you know, putting all that aside, you get letters from his office

stating to people out there: "You will have to be very careful to fill

out all these forms; there are certain criteria for getting lottery

funds." Those are the kind of letters that go out to people, especially

when they're refused, and then at the same time these people see that

the minister thinks that he can, with this paternalistic, benevolent,

Big Brother attitude, just suddenly decide that he's going to give a

thousand dollars here and a thousand dollars there on his own. What

kind of criterion is that?

MR. KING: Without an application.

MRS. DAILLY:

With no application, yet his director keeps sending letters out: "Don't

expect it without filling in the forms. We are very strict about how we

give out these moneys." That minister walks around this province —

drives, flies, whatever — and hands out money as if it's his money and

not the money of the people who bought the tickets. I'd like the

minister to vindicate that action, but, to my mind, the very fact that

the minister did it shows that he has no understanding that those

moneys are entrusted to him. They're not for him to use at his whim.

Then he's running around asking everyone to buy more lottery tickets.

Would you want to buy lottery tickets if you knew that instead of just

going to the charitable things you want it to, it depends on the whim

of a minister where the money goes?

I've got a letter here

from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). It's one of his

letters to his constituency, in which he says something to the effect

of, well, the lotteries are great, and I want you to know there's

nothing partisan about the way we hand out lottery moneys in this

province. Let me quote him so I'm not taking the chance of misquoting

this minister. This is from Tom Waterland, March 17, 1982; it's a

letter in the Similkameen Spotlight.

He says: "The NDP's accusations that constituencies with the Social

Credit MLAs are favoured in the distribution of lottery grants are

totally groundless. The grants are made strictly on the merits of a

particular application." The second member for Victoria will be

elaborating on that aspect.

Then the minister goes on to say: "I know from my own experience as your MLA that simply helping a group fill out

[ Page 8703 ]

application for a lottery grant is not enough." Now this is the

part I

want you to listen to, and I'm sure the critics for the Ministry of

Forests will find this interesting. This is what the minister said: "It

is my added responsibility to go to bat for you in Victoria by actively

pursuing the moneys you request." Doesn't that make the game even and

balanced? Mr. Waterland, who happens to be a cabinet minister, of

course doesn't have any particular clout with his colleagues in the

cabinet, but he's suggesting that more grants are going to Social

Credit because he really does have a little more clout. Of course he

does, and for a minister to suggest that this is how you go about

getting lottery grants is appalling.

There are many more

things I wish to discuss, but at this time I want to deal particularly

with the partisan thrust of this government — with what I consider to

be the complete abuse of their responsibilities in handling taxpayer

money through that minister in a large propaganda machinery. I'm going

to sit down because the member for Victoria wishes to continue on the

subject of our concerns over the government's information propaganda

machinery.

MR. BARBER: I have a couple of questions

for the minister and I would appreciate it if he could answer them now.

What is the current budget of the Government Production Centre? As

well, what is the approved staffing level for that centre? And how many

positions are currently filled at the Government Production Centre?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll get it for you.

MR. BARBER: I'll wait.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate should proceed, hon. members. Perhaps the first member for Victoria could continue.

MR. BARBER:

Debate will proceed when we get the answers. In the meantime, just as

the minister is entitled to have a moment to look up the answer, we're

entitled to have a moment to wait for the answer. There is no reason at

all to change subjects while we're waiting for an answer.

The

Chairman will know that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

arbitrarily changed the form of the estimates book this year, and that

information, which was ordinarily available, is not. If he hadn't so

changed the book we wouldn't have to ask the questions. However,

because he did change it arbitrarily and we're the victims of that

change, it therefore takes a moment to get the answers.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

With every respect, I think the member does have that information. It

is available in the distribution estimates that support the global

figures indicated in the estimates book.

In answer to his

question, the Government Production Centre budget for the current

fiscal year is $576,745, less budgeted recoveries of $194,000. This

compares with the previous year's budget of $698,326, less budgeted

recoveries of $50,000. The permanent staff is four: an acting director

and production manager — the same person; a manager of technical

operations; a switcher-editor; and an audio-operator. The others are

temporary auxiliaries or contract staff.

MR. BARBER: How many?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I show seven temporary auxiliary staff employed on a regular basis.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, thanks for waiting. It's the only practical way we can do it.

Can

the minister indicate how many persons are currently on contract to the

Government Production Centre, and what is the aggregate value of those

contracts?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll have to get back to the member in a few moments to answer that question.

MR. BARBER: That's fine. I don't mind waiting for that.

The

Government Production Centre, with a budget this year of $576,000, has

been taken over by the office of the Premier. This has been

demonstrated in the past and I will demonstrate it again today. It has

been taken over in terms of program content and in terms of at least

one of the key personnel. It has been specifically taken over by Doug

Heal. Mr. Heal's partisanship is well known and well established. This

so-called deputy minister was not appointed by the Public Service

Commission in the ordinary fashion at all, except for formality's sake;

he was appointed as the result of a report which he wrote and which

recommended hiring someone like himself. Mr. Heal was hired for

political and partisan reasons. He is not a deputy minister like any

other we've seen. He is a deputy minister in name only; his entire

function is political and partisan.

The Government

Production Centre began as an agency of the Ministry of Health during

our first administration. The intent of that agency was honest and

appropriate: it was to make films on health, diet and care for people

in British Columbia. That's all there was to it. It was set up to act

as a television production centre for the ministry in order to teach

kids how to brush their teeth and old folks how to look after their

diet, and everything in between. When Social Credit came into office,

they relatively quickly understood how they could use this for partisan

purposes, but even they took a while to figure it out; that is, until

Mr. Heal came to town. When Doug Heal was appointed, he immediately

assumed authority for the operations of that centre and had it

transferred from Health to himself. This had been previously in the

works, but it was finalized in an operational way by Mr. Heal. We have

seen the deliberate subversion of the original purpose of that

Government Production Centre as a health information program to what it

is today: a television studio with work budgeted, as the minister

indicated, in excess of $575,000.

What is the purpose of

this work? We'll be revealing that shortly. Briefly, however, I want to

trace the history of the Government Production Centre, whose original

purposes were honourable, reasonable and appropriate. The uses to which

Mr. Heal, agent of the Premier, has currently put it are not honourable

or appropriate, and are an abuse of public funds.

Earlier

this year, the Government Production Centre supposedly closed down for

a short while. Much fuss was made that they had incompetently budgeted,

and were temporarily shut down because of a cash shortfall. This reason

was false and could not be substantiated: in fact, it was a cover

story. The real reason for the temporary shutdown was to get rid of

certain employees who had begun to raise questions about the operations

of the centre, not because of alleged cash-flow problems that was then,

and is now, nonsense. The minister

[ Page 8704 ]

indicated

last year that cash recoveries for the Government Production Centre

were only $50,000, and that the budget for the whole centre was in

excess of $600,000. It is absurd to argue that an agency with a budget

of over $600,000 could be closed down because of a cash shortfall.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, we propose to demonstrate today that certain people were

dismissed from the staff of the Government Production Centre because

they began to raise questions about the propriety of using that studio

for partisan purposes under the regime of Mr. Heal and the Premier of

this province. Within short order the Government Production Centre was

in business again, having been temporarily suspended for only a brief

period. Its budget was restored almost intact. The four principals —

the public servants operating it — were retained on staff, and the

government has now gone to a contract situation because they didn't

like the in-house situation. They didn't like it because of the

considerable fuss raised in the House by those persons — in fact, of

January 15 by myself....

HON. MR. WOLFE: They always were on contract.

MR. BARBER: What are you talking about?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I said they always were on contract.

MR. BARBER:

You got rid of certain contracts, and you changed the terms and

conditions of some contracts in order to get rid of others. You rewrote

twelve-month contracts to three-month contracts to make it difficult

for some of those people to hold their jobs.

HON. MR. WOLFE: They were on contract before and they are now.

MR. BARBER:

You rewrote them arbitrarily to get rid of those individuals, and we

think you did so because you were embarrassed about the revelations

that were forthcoming — you were caught using that centre for partisan

purposes.

Let me illustrate. The Deputy Premier, the most

notoriously partisan member of that coalition, had actually talked the

Government Production Centre into doing a program called, in its

working form, "The Constitution Show." The purpose of this program was

to advocate, in an entirely political way, the view of Social Credit on

the debate surrounding the Constitution of Canada. This was a program

that had no legitimate purpose for disseminating public information.

The whole purpose was outlined by the Deputy Premier herself, and I'll

be tabling a copy of a memo in which referral is made to it. The memo

authored by the chief of the Government Production Centre outlines what

the government intended to do.

The reason for this cover

story about a cash shortfall and for the temporary closing of the

centre is, we argue — and I believe can prove — that the government was

increasingly disturbed about the revelations of partisanship being

imposed by Mr. Heal on behalf of the Premier on the operations of an

otherwise useful and appropriate vehicle, the Government Production

Centre. I repeat that the claim that a cash shortfall was the reason

for the closure in January of this year cannot be substantiated. The

only agencies of government — and we called every comptroller or their

deputy — that owed any money at all in January of this year to the

Government Production Centre was Agriculture, which owed $600, and

Human Resources, which owed $13,481, of which they were disputing

$4,950. Assuming that you accept the larger figures, approximately

$14,000 was owed the Government Production Centre.

On this

phony basis, the government was able to shut it down temporarily,

arbitrarily rewrite contracts and thereby attempt to get itself off the

hook of political difficulties. The Government Production Centre has

been embarrassed by the revelations about the imposed partisanship

which they've had to suffer. They've been embarrassed by other problems

as well.

Let me illustrate. As of January of this year — and

I gather the situation remains current — there is a five-camera mobile

unit owned by the Government Production Centre. The Crown spent

$235,000 on it. It has never been used as of January of this year, and,

I'm advised informally, ever since as well. It has never been used even

though on March 9, 1981, the assistant director, Mr. Farkas, indicated

that the five-camera mobile unit would have a technical producer and a

technical crew and be responsible for aiding the Government Production

Centre in its operations.

I received a letter dated January

11 of this year from Derek Gardner, who is an independent producer. Mr.

Gardner verifies as well that $235,000 was wasted on a five-camera

mobile unit that was never used. I will quote from the paragraph of his

letter to me and to Mr. Heal and Mr. Chazottes as well.

"There is a five-camera, videotape mobile languishing in

a parking lot in Victoria. It is now the property of the Government Production

Centre. After three attempts it is now finished and ready for work. But what

work? These vehicles have a very limited use, primarily sports or special events.

To my knowledge the sports and recreation department don't have the funding

available, and unless the centre were contemplating covering the ballet or the

symphony, it would have little use. The value on the used market for this type

of vehicle is minimal."

total of $235,000 was spent on this mobile unit. I would like to ask

the Provincial Secretary what use has been made of it. Could any

justification be offered for this incredible expenditure. In regard to

hiring practices, I am advised that people were hired on the promise of

a 12-month contract. Those promises were not kept; in fact the people

who were hired discovered when they arrived that it had been changed

arbitrarily.

Again I quote from Mr. Gardner's letter:

"Once

again, from a personal point of view, the evolution of our

personal-service contracts was mystifying. We started with half-page

'agreements' that held little protection for the Crown or for us. We

were then offered one-year contracts with guaranteed minimum days of

work — standard practice for the industry — in return for lowering our

daily rates. After this contract had been struck, the terms were

changed to three-month durations. We objected and were told that it was

strictly a bookkeeping measure and that we would still have guaranteed

tenure — guaranteed verbally. The whole process of contract negotiation

was most unpleasant."

[ Page 8705 ]

goes on to make some personal remarks about the individuals he dealt

with. There is no need to repeat those here as the minister has a copy

of the letter.

Another producer indicated that he was

required to "alter invoices" and engage in what he also called

"creative bookkeeping." Let me, if I may, read from the comments of

that producer again, Mr. Gardner. This is a memo to Gloria White, who,

as the minister will know, is the acting director of the Government

Production Centre. On November 18, 1981, Mr. Gardner said:

"Yesterday

I was asked to alter my invoice to charge some of my time to shows. I

did so under protest. I must make it clear that I will not repeat this.

There was not enough related work to warrant writing off any 'days.' I

have my own system for keeping track of hours worked on shows. When I

have totalled up a day's work on a show, I bill the appropriate show,

but not before then. I am expected to be responsible for a show's

budget, which includes billing my services, I am the best judge of how

my time has been spent, and I will not be party to the new 'creative

bookkeeping.'"

There is further paragraph which talks about

the producer's contract. That was also written by Mr. Gardner, who is a

reputable, independent producer in British Columbia. I will table the

memo and this internal document, where he was asked and refused to

participate in what he called "altering invoices" and "creative

bookkeeping."

We also have evidence of direct political

interference by the Premier himself. This is the case of Lori Lee

Pacholzuk. I have another question for the minister: is she still

seconded to the office of the acting director of the Government

Production Centre?

Let me read from a memo. On December 15, 1981, Gloria White sent a memo to all of her staff in regard to Lori Pacholzuk.

"Please

welcome Ms. Lori Pacholzuk who joins the centre today as my

administrative assistant. Miss Pacholzuk has been seconded to the

centre on a temporary basis from the office of the government

information services. Lori will be assisting me in the overall tasks of

furthering 'special programs' necessary for GPC-ministerial relations."

Who

is Lori Lee Pacholzuk, Mr. Chairman? She was the media coordinator for

the Social Credit Party. She held this position until she was hired in

the Premier's office. At the time of her hiring she was 23 years of

age. She was from Penticton and earns $19,500 a year as a media liaison

officer in the government information programs office.

That's

not too bad by itself until you read the order-in-council which

appointed her on December 3, 1981. It's signed by the minister whose

estimates we are debating and the Premier, Mr. Bennett. It is

order-in-council 2538: "...the position of media liaison officer in the

office of the deputy minister, government information programs,

Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services, be designated

as one requiring the incumbent to act in a confidential capacity to the

Premier." The order then goes on to set her salary at $19,500 and

Here is

a woman who was the media liaison officer for the Social Credit Party.

She had no other qualifications. She is then appointed by

order-in-council to act in a confidential capacity to the Premier in

the office of Mr. Heal. Shortly thereafter, she turns up in the office

of the director of the Government Production Centre as her

administrative assistant. According to the memo, an internal document,

Mrs. White described her task as being "furthering special programs

necessary for Government Production Centre ministerial relations."

What's

going on here? They hire a Socred hack, they appoint her to Doug Heal's

office, they turn around and reappoint her to the allegedly

non-partisan Government Production Centre. This is a clear subversion

of the original intent of the Government Production Centre. This is a

subversion of the operations of that centre for partisan purposes. No

person who has been hired "in a confidential capacity to the Premier"

should then have any hand whatever in determining the content or the

conduct of the programs coming out of the Government Production Centre.

The only reason this government might have hired Miss Pacholzuk for the

Government Production Centre is political. There can be no other

justification. The woman in question evidently has no professional

background in television: she had never previously worked at the

Government Production Centre; her only job was to further the political

fortunes of Social Credit, which she is — or as of January of this year

was — still doing. The way she was doing it was by being seconded from

the party to Mr. Heal to the Government Production Centre. That was the

route followed by Miss Pacholzuk.

I ask the Provincial

Secretary again whether or not Miss Pacholzuk is still in that office:

and if so, what are her duties? As far as we can tell, from beginning

to end they have been entirely partisan. They were to represent the

political will of the Premier to the staff of the Government Production

Centre, some of whom, one could reasonably expect, opposed the

partisanship imposed upon them by the Premier and by his agent Mr. Heal.

The

political supervision of the Government Production Centre was

dramatically escalated in December last year. One of the reasons it was

escalated was that in March 1981 Hollywood producers Gayle and Norman

Sedawie actually wrote a script for a program which they called "TV or

Not TV." In this script cabinet ministers were advised to keep their

zippers up, to keep their pantlegs down, not to show too much cleavage

on television, not to wear fancy jewellery that might shine and sparkle

in the TV lens, and on and on it went. Fourteen thousand dollars later

— the government had spent on the Sedawies — we discovered what this

government thinks of that production centre.

The purpose of

the script, "TV or Not TV," which I will release to this committee — I

have a copy of it — is clearly to improve the personal image of Socred

cabinet ministers. That is an improper use of public funds. It may not

be illegal, but it is certainly unethical. If the Socreds want to spend

money improving the five-o'clock- shadow problems of their members,

they may do so, but let it come from their own pockets. The $14,000

wasted on this program should never have been spent in the first place

— if the government had known the difference between party politics and

party programs, which they should pay for out of their coffers, and

legitimate programs of public information, which are a legitimate bill

on the people of British Columbia.

The program that the

Sedawies were asked to do they were asked to do because the Deputy

Premier and Mr. Heal cooked it tip. From the evidence we have, it seems

they decided that the personal images of the Socred ministers weren't

good enough. In fact, the script specifically refers to

[ Page 8706 ]

people

who could be clearly identified as the Deputy Premier, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Premier himself. There

are various amusing passages in which they act out the characters of a

person who has flame-red hair, another minister who is clearly the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, and someone who is obviously the

Premier, judging from the comments about five-o'clock shadow.

That

expenditure of $14,000 was absolutely improper. It should never have

been made. It should never have been authorized. It should never have

been paid. The bill itself, we argue, should, even at this date, be

paid by the Social Credit Party, and the government should be

reimbursed for it. No doubt the Sedawies are very good at their

business, which is producing Hollywood television programs. That is

absolutely irrelevant to the interests of the people of British

Columbia. It is not the business of the Government Production Centre to

turn itself into Hollywood North. It is not the business of this

government to commission Hollywood producers, at a cost of $14,000 for

the script alone, to tell cabinet ministers how to improve their

personal image on television. This money was wasted from beginning to

end. Its expenditure was improper from beginning to end. Even the

Liberals in Ottawa would never imagine they could get away with such

partisan abuse of public funds.

But there's more. In late

1980 the Deputy Premier, as I mentioned before — and I will go into it

in detail now — ordered that the Government Production Centre put

together a 30-minute television program promoting the Social Credit

government view of the constitution debate. This program was actually

assigned a producer and a budget, and was intended to be aired across

British Columbia. It's operating title was "A Unique Coexistence,"

subtitled "The Constitution Show." The whole project was created with

considerable secrecy, and various memos passed among the staff, telling

them that the Deputy Premier was worried that this might be leaked to

the press or leaked to the opposition. Nine thousand dollars was

actually spent on this program. It was only abandoned when the first

controversy took place in regard to Hollywood North.

Let me

read from a memo signed by Gloria White. This memo, which came out in

late December 1980 or early January 1981 — I do not have the date —

said:

"Deputy Premier Mrs. Grace McCarthy has

also asked me to design a half-hour program regarding the constitution

and British Columbia for national viewing. This program could be done

in the studio either Sunday January 18 or Sunday January 25. This would

mean quick strike of "Senior Chef" — which is a legitimate program that

this television studio produces — "and a set of 'Constitution.' But it

is early for me to confirm these plans. I will keep you all posted.

"Copy to Maurice Chazottes."

The

program never actually came off. The reason for it: they got caught.

The reason for it: it was intended from beginning to end to be

partisan. The purpose of this "Constitution Show" was to do nothing

other than advocate the political views of the leader of the Social

Credit Party and Premier of this province. That was not in fact a

legitimate proposal for the Government Production Centre. We're glad

that we raised this issue at the time we did, and thereby killed this

ridiculous television program.

Social Credit wants to

carry on its fight with the Prime Minister — although lately it's

become more of a love-in than a fight — let them do so at their own

expense. It is not appropriate to spend $9,000 on preproduction work

for a show that had no other purpose than that of advocating the

political views of Social Credit in regard to the constitution debate.

The Deputy Premier had no right whatever to make the request she did.

If ever there was proof of political interference in the operations of

the Government Production Centre, it is this memo — an internal memo

signed by Mrs. White, acting director of the Government Production

Centre. It is regrettable that Mrs. White accepted the request. I wish

she had refused it outright, but that's for her to deal with. We're not

interested in attacking public servants; we are critical of a Deputy

Premier who would attempt to subvert for political purposes this

Government Production Centre. We have the proof; I will table this memo

in the House as well, if the minister doubts the authenticity of our

argument.

A show called "TV or Not TV" was an abuse of

public funds, and $14,000 was wasted. A show called "The Constitution

Show" was an abuse of public funds, and $9,000 was wasted on that. The

only purpose of these programs was to aid and abet the political and

personal image of the Socreds and their ministers. We charge, Mr.

Chairman, that this is a political corruption of the original purposes

of the Government Production Centre. It is a political corruption to

ask them to undertake programs called "TV or Not TV" or another show

about the constitution. It is a political corruption for the Deputy

Premier, who has nothing whatever to do with the online administration

of this agency, to ask them to undertake such a program. If it were

legitimate it should surely have come from the Provincial Secretary

himself; if it were legitimate it might even have come from Mr. Heal,

but no, it didn't do either of those two things. It came straight from

the most partisan member of the coalition government in British

Columbia, the Deputy Premier, Mrs. McCarthy.

You need look

no further for proof of political interference than the existence of

the Sedawie script, advising cabinet ministers to "roll up their flies

and roll down their trousers," which is literally what it did — and

I'm not being crude at all; that's absolutely in the script.

is an abuse for the Deputy Premier to request yet another program to

promote the views held by this government on the constitution. The way

for them to promote their views is here in this Legislature; it is

there in the Parliament of Canada. It is not — repeat not — through a

government television studio taking unfair, unreasonable and improper

advantage of one of the most powerful mediums that could ever influence

public opinion. If Social Credit wants to put together a TV show to

advocate their views, that's fine; let them do it at their own expense.

To do this at public expense through the Government Production Centre

is from beginning to end an abuse and a subversion of the purposes of

that centre that cannot be tolerated by this Legislature.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, for some time now I've been extremely concerned about the

distribution of lottery grants. As the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) and my colleague from Victoria have outlined, the ombudsman has

looked at this particular situation and has made a series of

recommendations which indicate clearly that the government has been

acting in a totally partisan way in the distribution of the lottery

grants. I think all the people in British Columbia know that something

is wrong in the distribution of these grants — they know it intuitively

— but I wanted to do

[ Page 8707 ]

something to see if I could find out exactly what was going on.

asked a couple of people that I know who happen to be PhD researchers

who conduct research for the federal and provincial governments to look

at the ombudsman's report, to look at the concerns put forward by

various community groups, to look at the packages and statements of

lottery grants issued by the Provincial Secretary, to see if we could

empirically demonstrate that political affiliation was the major

determining factor in the distribution of these grants. Let me tell you

some of the basic aspects of their study.

First of all, the

argument that some grants benefit more than one electoral area is, of

course, correct. So those particular grants that benefited more than

one electoral area had to be removed from the study. Grants that

benefited the entire province, such as the Summer Games or a student

camp or a music festival, etc., also had to be removed from the study.

We had to remove the bias to make sure that the grant being assigned

was clearly within the boundary of one benefiting area, one electoral

area. Clearly a grant to the city of Victoria can also benefit Oak Bay;

Vancouver South and Vancouver Centre can also be cross-benefiting in

terms of grants. So the urban area of Vancouver was withdrawn from the

study, as were the municipalities of Victoria and Oak Bay. As it turns

out, the grants to ridings such as Esquimalt go to areas such as Sooke

or Jordan River, etc.; in other words, they're far removed

geographically from the other more urban area of the constituency.

Saanich,

for example, remained in the study because all of the grants appeared

to be in the Sidney and North Saanich areas, and not immediately

adjacent to the city of Victoria. What I'm trying to explain is that

these researchers did everything possible to ensure that if a grant to

a particular riding benefited an adjacent riding, then that grant was

removed, or in constituencies where it was absolutely impossible to

determine clearly that it was going to one particular riding, that

riding was removed. In other words, the central ridings of Vancouver,

Victoria and Oak Bay, and any grants that benefited more than one

riding, were removed.

The results are very, very distressing

indeed. The results indicate that political affiliation is the major

determining factor in the granting of the lottery grant. The per capita

and gross grant sizes bear no relationship whatsoever to population. An

argument put forward in defence of the lottery granting process by the

Provincial Secretary was that an area of large population would tend to

have more grants, or that would be a variable which would influence the

total grant size or the per capita grant size allocated into that

electoral area. Population is clearly not a variable. All the grants

since 1979, with the exception of the ones I've already outlined, were

run through a computer. Population was considered as a possible

variable. What happens is that population is not a factor. The

likelihood of the distribution of grants based on population is less

than 5 percent. Political affiliation is the main determining factor

all over the province.

Let me give you the results of the

study. We find that the average grant and the average per capita grant

— mean grant — along party lines are as follows. The NDP constituencies

have values of $98,000 by average, and per capita of $3.87; Social

Credit ridings record average $162,900, and a per capita average of

$6.54. In other words, Social Credit constituencies are awarded more

than half again as much as NDP constituencies. That is clearly

demonstrated by these doctoral researchers in statistical research.

I'll happily make the data cards available to any research organization

and to the ombudsman's office with the results of this study when it's

completed.

I would like to give you some of the straight

numerical breakdown by party affiliation. The number one constituency

organization in terms of per capita grant and gross grant is the riding

of Yale-Lillooet, which totalled $342,000 with a per capita average of

$18.38. The lowest is the NDP riding of Maillardville-Coquitlam, with

not one dime awarded and a mean average of zero. Shame!

challenge the Provincial Secretary to make available to this

Legislature all of the grant applications — not just the ones that are

awarded. We will turn those over to an independent research group and

we will ask them to submit a report to this House. If you think that

you can get by with the argument that there are fewer requests coming

in from NDP ridings, or that NDP members are not actively pursuing

these on behalf of their constituents, I challenge you in this House:

you make all of the applications available to this House and we will

take them to an independent research group to make an independent

report to the Legislature. It is scandalous that the top awards are

going not on a population basis.

Clearly if you have a large

population you expect more applications and more successful receipts of

grants. But here you've got Yale-Lillooet with $18.38 per person,

Kootenay with $l4.43 per person, South Peace with$13.83 per person, and

North Peace with S10.80 per person. Nelson-Creston was up in the top

ten because there was one major grant given there to a senior citizens'

home, which was almost the entire amount. Take a look at the bottom:

Maillardville-Coquitlam, zero; Prince Rupert, 16 cents per constituent,

compared with Yale-Lillooet with $18.38: North Island, 89 cents,

compared with Yale-Lillooet with $18.38; New Westminster, $1.13 per

capita, and a gross amount of $33.350; and so on.

We took

all of the grants that were not influenced by bias. We removed the bias

from the study. We took all of the other grants and ran them through

the computer on the basis of population and all the other arguments put

forward by the government to argue that there was some fairness and

equity in the distribution of these grants. There isn't. The computer

study indicates, without a doubt, that political affiliation is the

main determining factor in the receipt of the grants. That is

absolutely scandalous.

The only way that the public can be

served properly.... In good faith, the citizens of this province

buy lottery grants because of that gamble and hope that perhaps they

may end up a winner, but also because they are under the

understanding that the money that is given to the Crown from the

proceeds of those sales will go to worthy causes and will benefit the

community in a wide range of worthwhile endeavours. But when we have

the granting process so biased on the basis of the political

affiliation of the electoral riding from which the application

originates, it is absolutely unfair. The ombudsman, with his report,

attempted to get at the core of problems in terms of the committee that

makes the grants. The only way we can get to the bottom of this Socred

pork-barrel is for the Provincial Secretary to make available to this

House and to the public all the applications that have been made, no

matter what electoral district. Then we will look at the ones that have

been accepted and turned down. We will then make recommendations on a

process that will remove the pork-barrel aspect of this travesty.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 8708 ]

This

study indicates that political affiliation is the main determining

factor in the acceptance of grant applications. Social Credit ridings

get 50 percent more on average and on gross grant size, and also on per

capita grant size. There is a totally disproportionate representation

of Social Credit ridings at the top in terms of the gross grants

received. The NDP ridings are clearly at the bottom.

I have

a scatter diagram produced by the computer which very clearly indicates

that population is not a variable or factor; political affiliation is.

That is the scandalous finding which has been clearly indicated in this

study. We'll be making all the information available to the press.

We'll be making the information on the cards, the data cards themselves

and all of the documentation from this study available to some

independent research group that can clear the air on this pork-barrel

that is really acting in bad faith for the public.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I hasten to make a few short remarks regarding the statement just made

by the hon. member indicating the misuse of lottery funds. Nothing can

be further from the facts.

Lottery funds, as has been stated

by this party and government many times, are distributed according to

need, application and criteria that do not vary from constituency to

constituency. That's been amply proven many times. Where there is no

need, there are no funds.

He talks about New Westminster.

I'd hasten to tell him how grandly New Westminster has been treated by

this government. It has one of the finest courthouse complexes in

Canada, with a beautiful library which looks like the Taj Mahal. Not

only that, but Douglas College is being constructed there for

multimillions of dollars, also with libraries bulging out of all ends;

a tremendous complex recently opened. That's in the constituency of New

Westminster. Don't tell us that's a Social Credit constituency.

The

waterfront development is an exciting development, even more exciting

than False Creek on the Fraser River in Vancouver. That's for

Westminster. And they talk about inequities? I tell you, Mr. Chairman,

I should be complaining that too much is going to opposition

constituencies, but we don't talk that way in our party. We say:

"Fairness to all and favours to none."

MR. KING: I was interested in the comments of the member who just sat

down. I certainly receive different messages from the community out there. There

does seem to be a great deal of concern regarding the awarding of lottery applications,

but before I deal with those I want to deal briefly with the media centre that

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) spoke about. I want to read to the

minister an editorial from the Salmon Arm Observer respecting this question

that I think should be read into the record of the House, and that I think the

member should be aware of. It is dated April 21, 1982, and is entitled: "Managed

News Big Difference."

"The opposition has termed outrageous statements the British

Columbia government has spent $200,000 looking into setting up its own news

service — and it is outrageous, but more because of the implication than the

money. Provincial Secretary Evan Wolfe admits the study is going on, and defends

it because the government wants to provide the people with better information.

"He

says there's nothing new in the idea. It's already being done in

Alberta. He's right. It is nothing new. It's been done in Nazi Germany,

in Soviet Russia and in a host of tinpot dictatorships around the

world. Its history in democratic jurisdictions, on the other hand, is

much more limited, and a good thing too, or we'd never have had

correction of Watergate or other incidents of wrongdoing in high places.

"If

Mr. Wolfe still has trouble understanding concern on this issue, he

need look no further than his own dictionary. In ours a newsman or

woman is described as 'a person employed to collect and help

disseminate news,' which is in turn described as 'reports of recent

events or public intelligence and information.' A propagandist on the

other hand is described as 'a person devoted to the propagation of the

particular doctrines and principles of a movement or organization,'

and propaganda as 'information spread widely for the purpose of helping

a particular person, group movement, etc.'

"The

difference in the

definitions is not subtle. Free people won't require

a lengthy explanation of that difference; they'll know it."

Mr.

Chairman, I submit that the Provincial Secretary should recognize the

distinction when we see him and his colleagues utilizing public funds

for the media centre for television extravaganzas directed solely at

improving the shaken image of some of his cabinet colleagues, and when

we see further initiatives which seek to control the method of

reporting news. We have a free public press gallery, and if the

government is not happy with the type of reporting coming from that

press gallery they should look to themselves rather than to any device

which could be construed as seeking to replace that free press in terms

of their appraisal of the government's conduct. That should be the

answer, not the utilization of public funds to set up some kind of

internal propaganda machine, whether it be of the electronic variety or

of the newspaper or press release variety in terms of shoring up the

government's image.

I wanted to make that point, Mr.

Chairman, and move on to lottery funds. In my riding I have very

actively assisted a variety of organizations seeking lottery grants for

functions in the constituency. I have found, contrary to the suggestion

by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), that there appear to be

inconsistent criteria for the approval of lottery funds. I am not

alone, Mr. Chairman. My constituents find inconsistent criteria. I have

a letter from Mr. Chris Nelson, director of the parks and recreation

branch for the regional district of North Okanagan, and I shall read it.

"Dear Mr. King:

"At the last meeting of the Fortune Parks and Recreation

Committee, Enderby and area, a discussion arose regarding the system of approvals

for lottery grant applications. The committee is concerned with the inconsistencies

in the approval procedures. For example, earlier this year, an application for

funding assistance to build a public washroom- concession facility was sent

by the Grindrod Recreation Commission to the lotteries branch. Their application

was refused, as it did not meet the necessary requirements. Yet in looking over

other approved projects throughout the province, we feel the Grindrod application

should certainly have been considered for

[ Page 8709 ]

funding. This is just one example of the fluctuations in the

approval procedures of the lotteries branch.

have enclosed a copy of the letter turning down the Grindrod

application explaining to apply through the RFAP program. Also enclosed

is a copy of approved projects throughout the province that come under

the same criteria. An application to RFAP is now under consideration.

"Again, the committee is very concerned over the lottery

grants and the approval procedures, and feels that you should be aware of these

inconsistencies. Thank you for your consideration in this matter."

They attach a letter from Mr. Ray Orchard, dated July 28, 1981, where he says in part:

"Re

washroom and concession facilities, the Lottery Fund does not normally

assist projects that are eligible for consideration from other

government agencies."

Fair enough. Why then did the Union of Spiritual Communities of

Christ, Grand Forks — renovations to community centre — qualify for

$50,000? Why then did Maple Ridge Amateur Athletic Association — field

lighting — qualify for $29,545? Why did branch 24, Senior Citizens

Association of B.C., Chilliwack purchase a building and qualify for a

grant to the tune of $25,000? Why did the Welsh Society of Vancouver —

hall renovations — quality for $32,066? Why did Langley Family Services

Association qualify to receive $50,500 for purchase of a building? Why

did the Wallachin Soldiers Memorial Hall Society — hall repair and

renovations — qualify for $10,000? Why did the corporation of the

district of Burnaby — resurfacing Swangard Stadium track — qualify to

the tune of $280,000? Why did the Saturna Women's Service Club, Saturna

Island — hall and kitchen roof — qualify to the tune of $6,300? The

Kinsmen Club of Mackenzie constructs a community centre — $35,000. The

Greater Victoria Horseshoe Club facility — $18,529.

Mr.

Chairman, I am not disputing any of these other applications that were

approved. They were undoubtedly all for worthwhile, well-justified

causes. But the point is, as my constituent has pointed out, why the

inconsistency? The excuse given to the Grindrod grant applicants was

that they would not qualify if they would normally be eligible for a

grant otherwise. The ones I have read out to the minister he will

readily recognize would qualify for a grant under the Community

Recreational Facilities Licensing Fund — one third sharing of up to $1

million.

As the ombudsman has stated, the minister has taken

too much discretion unto himself. The criteria are fuzzy, to say the

least, and give reason to suspect that partisan politics is playing a

part in the determination of these grant approvals. I would appreciate

it very much if the Provincial Secretary, when he answers the many

questions put to him, would provide some rational explanation so that I

might in turn tell my constituents whether or not there is a coherent

and consistent policy, and criteria, for the approval of lottery fund

grants in British Columbia. The people in British Columbia deserve that

assurance; they deserve an explanation. Certainly I hope that the

minister will respond in a serious way to these apparent

inconsistencies that my constituents have pointed out. I would

appreciate that very much.

MRS. DAILLY: As we've been

dealing with one particular aspect, could the minister answer some of

these questions before we move on to other subjects?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I don't know where members want me to commence; we've been covering a

pretty broad area. Shall I deal initially with lottery applications?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

We' ve canvassed this subject many times before. There is a specific

list of guidelines, most of which refer to normal circumstances of an

application. I think the member who just took his seat referred to an

application that said: "Lottery grant applications are not normally

approved where an application is normally funded under an existing

government program." That's not the purpose of lotteries; it is to

provide discretionary funds where there is a need at that time,

depending on the priority of the item. These guidelines are merely for

the normal edification of the person applying.

In terms of

the specific matter raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King), I don't have those applications before me. He quoted from a

letter from the director of the lottery grants department, Mr. Orchard,

who responded to this, and I invite him to appeal that case to me. It

may be obsolete now. Many of these applications reach my attention

because a member intercedes, or some other person appeals the original

refusal of a lottery grant under the existing guidelines.

Reference

has been made to the ombudsman's complaint that no advisory committee

determines lottery applications. Why don't we have one? We have

canvassed this many times before. The ombudsman, in fact, made no

criticism in his report of the individual administration of any

existing grant. He criticized certain aspects that have since been

addressed. Some of them have been remedied in terms of more specific

guidelines right on the application form. We have responded to the

appointment of certain requests of the ombudsman. However, he wanted an

advisory agency to determine lottery grants, and that is not

something this government could support. You would have to create a

bureaucracy, a delay in terms of approving lottery grants.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I don't think the people of this province would want to see another

staff bureaucracy set up to determine the distribution of a

straightforward matter such as lottery grants. It's a responsibility of

the minister, like many other funding arrangements in government. Every

minister in this government has that kind of responsibility.

I'd

like to get back to the question raised by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) on the Enderby Parks branch washroom

facility. I don't

have the details, but if he would supply them to me I'd be glad to

review the matter, asI've done many times. A great many of

the approvals for lottery applications which I attend with lottery branch

staff have to do with applications originally refused. They are

reviewed where a person feels other circumstances are involved in the

case.

We sit here and talk about the political partisanship

of lottery grants, citing figures, such as those from the second member

for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), to try to demonstrate how

[ Page 8710 ]

unfair

the distribution of lotteries is. We can only respond to applications

received. There are constituencies in this province where there never

appears to be a need or an application for a lottery grant; there are

others where there are a lot, many of which cannot be approved. We can

only approve lottery funding according to the amount of funds

available. In discretionary grants under lottery funds, there is about

$6 million to $7 million per year available for individual grants. Some

are for $100 or $200 for travel assistance; others are for many

thousands of dollars for larger undertakings. We recently offered to

finance construction of child-care facilities in this province. We have

received a number of applications for construction of day-care centres,

and currently there is no program within government. We've allocated

certain funds for the year to those people who applied, and we're

awaiting responses to that offer. We've written to the organizations

that applied. It's not possible to fund the construction of all needs

for day-care centres in this province. However, through the lotteries

branch we've addressed those applications, many of which have been

refused, and asked if they want to retender them. We would consider

funding up to the amount we are prepared to set aside for that purpose.

put that forward as an example of the discretion which can be used to

address a program that currently doesn't exist. We've made public, on a

quarterly basis, the complete and detailed disclosure of lotteries

grants. Notwithstanding the concerns of members, I want to assure you

it's only a case of responding to a demand from constituencies across

the province.

In relation to the last question, I'm advised

that the application for the Grindrod Recreation Park washroom

concession development was approved under the RFAP program in October

I have a few brief comments regarding the Government

Production Centre and the amount of money supposedly under this massive

ministry for advertising and control of all advertising, and the agency

of record problem. The new policy on agency of record, by which one

agency is responsible for the placing of all advertising, is going to

save this government some $600,000 over one year, or 10 percent of the

cost of ads. That's the reason this system has been developed. It's not

unusual. The national government, a number of other provinces and major

corporations in Canada now use the single-agency-of-record method to

develop their placement of advertising on a more efficient and uniform

basis.

Across all ministries there is, under code 40, an

allocation of $22 million in the current year's budget for advertising

and publications. The greater part of that amount is represented in a

variety of government publications, including the listing of public

service jobs and the distribution of material required by ministries.

Of the $22 million, I think only $7 million could be classified as

straightforward advertising placed through the media, representing an

increase of about 10 percent over last year for the total for

advertising and publications.

Last year and this year we had

a lot of discussion on the Government Production Centre, this terrible

agency which is concocting material and helping ministers to look

better, and so on. In fact, the Government Production Centre produces

completely internal documents required by the mandates of the various

ministries. I'll just cite a few examples of productions completed in

1981-82.

For the Ministry of Agriculture, a special

information program for beef producers. Consumer and Corporate Affairs:

a film on the rentalsman, 28 minutes; techniques used in conducting

disputes and hearings are demonstrated. Ministry of Health: the "Senior

Chef" series, 28 minutes; a cooking series devoted to nutrition for

seniors. Ministry of Health: "Corporate Cup," an overview of the

corporate cup track and field fitness through fun. Ministry of Health:

"Reach Out," 26 minutes; an overview of the Penticton and district

retirement complex.

I have here a complete list of last

year's productions. Human Resources: child abuse and neglect, 30

minutes; discussion of techniques used by social workers with their

clients. Human Resources: "Council of the Eighties," 30 minutes;

interviewing. The rehabilitation support services program; a training

program explaining rehab support services and individual opportunities

program. Ministry of Health: "Alive and Well" a series on health care

issues with an emphasis on prevention. I could go on into this year's

productions to cite three or four of them. Human Resources: an overview

of the ministry is being developed for staff orientation. Family and

children's services: an in-depth study of this Human Resources division

for staff orientation. Human Resources income assistance: staff

orientation. These are productions being developed at this stage.

The

question is continually raised as to the measures taken between January

and March 1981, in terms of addressing themselves to the fact that the

production centre was advised by the comptroller that there were not

sufficient funds left to carry out the productions which had been

initiated. As is well known in this House and elsewhere, measures had

to be taken by that centre and by government information program

directors to bring the thing back to scale in terms of living within

the amount voted by this Legislature for that centre. There's nothing

innocuous or hidden in terms of the meaning; no partisanship involved

in why this had to happen. They were advised by the comptroller in

January that they simply were not able to receive any more funds unless

they had further funds repaid from ministries.

A tremendous

change was made in their accounting and accountability between then and

the end of their production year, because they couldn't get further

funds through the comptroller — which I commend them for. They had to

take the necessary actions, in terms of people who were on contract, in

order to respond to the budgetary measures adopted by the comptroller

through this ministry.

MR. BARBER: The minister answered questions I did not ask. He provided no answers to the questions I did ask. I will reiterate.

asked what became of the five-camera mobile unit costing $235,000,

which, as of six months ago, had never even been used. I asked about

the Social Credit media officer, appointed to Mr. Heal's office and

seconded to Mrs. White's office; her name is Pacholzuk. I asked whether

or not she was still there. I remind the minister that the

order-in-council which appointed her in the first place designated that

she

would have to act "in a confidential capacity to the Premier." I asked

what business could be conducted by a neutral and non-partisan

Government Production Centre that would require the services of such a

person.

I asked, as well, for him to justify the $14,000 that was wasted on the Sedawie script for a program that was never

[ Page 8711 ]

filmed, called "TV or Not TV," which includes the following advice:

"Television appearances are important. Learn to use television,

not be used by television. The majority of people today look to television for

their news. Print is far behind. They form their opinions not so much by what

they hear as what they see. Right or wrong, style is more important than substance

when it comes to TV. First impressions are most important, so let's begin

with how you look."

I asked the minister to justify and defend this expenditure of $14,000 on

a script like this for the Government Production Centre.

asked the minister to justify and defend the $9,000 that was wasted

because of the political interference of the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), who ordered up a television show on the Socred view of the

constitution debate. Nine thousand dollars later, all that money having

been wasted on preproduction, the government was getting caught in its

dealings with Hollywood North, and the film was never actually

produced. Nonetheless, the money was spent, in the amount of $9,000.

The

minister read into the record a list of films which the Government Production Centre has made for Health, Agriculture and other agencies

of the government. We do not dispute the legitimacy or purpose of those

films. They are excellent efforts. "Senior Chef" is a terrific

production. I'm glad that seniors in my riding watch it, because they

pay better attention thereby to their own diets and to the problem of

maintaining good diet and health on the restricted incomes which they

suffer under Social Credit. That's a good series, and we didn't

complain about that. By the way, we didn't even ask about that.

What

we did ask about was Pacholzuk, and her obvious partisanship, and if

she is still there. We asked about the $235,000 for the mobile camera.

Has it been used? If so, for what purposes? We asked about the waste of

$14,000 on the Sedawie script telling cabinet ministers how to look

better. We asked about $9,000 wasted on Mrs. McCarthy's plan to

brainwash the people of British Columbia with the Socred view of the

constitution debate. Those are the questions I actually asked. The ones

the minister answered I never asked at all. I'd like to try again. I'd

like him to answer this time the questions that I actually did put to

him, starting with the $235,000 on the mobile camera.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I apologize for not responding to some of those questions earlier.

There was quite a wide and broad selection of questions that came

across the House.

Firstly, Lori Pacholzuk. This person's

appointment to the production centre was a temporary one. Her duties

were to prepare an information kit for the use of client ministries, in

terms of how to use the production centre. She had absolutely no

involvement in the planning or selection of programs. She is now

assisting in the Robson Square office of government information

programs as a public information officer.

You asked about

the five-camera mobile unit. I'm advised in one instance use would have

been made of it in the opening of the House or other opportunities

where the House would be viewed by camera. It's very suitable for that

purpose, but at the moment it is on loan to BCIT, who I understand are

quite interested in acquiring it.

MR. BARBER: I also

asked the minister to explain and justify the $14,000 spent when Norman

and Gayle Sedawie produced a script that told cabinet ministers how to

look good on TV. Can you explain that? Can you justify that? I ask him

as well to explain and justify the expenditure of $9,000 caused by the

Deputy Premier when she ordered up a show on the Socred view of the

constitution debate, known as "A Constitution Show," and I read into

the record the memo from Mrs. White which authenticates the charge we

make that this film was actually planned. I also have a copy of the

preproduction budget for that, which I would be happy to show the

minister if he doesn't have it himself. I'd like him to explain and

justify those two expenditures — $14,000 for the Sedawies and $9,000

for McCarthy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you justify Gary Lauk?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I'll remind the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) and also the first member for Victoria that it is

unparliamentary to use a member's given name.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I don't think I can help the member with some of those questions. He

has raised continually the efforts by the government, through the

media, to get across its views on the constitution, a very

long-standing and complicated debate, difficult for citizens to follow

and understand what the British Columbia position was. Obviously, very

many considerations were given to approach this. As a matter of fact,

to show you the difficulty in it, it's hard for me to understand the

position on the constitution advanced by the member for Vancouver East.

Not many people know what he thinks about that.

I commend

and would support the efforts by the government to develop programs to

explain that policy — whatever those efforts were to explain it —

because there was debate on that subject which took place over a long

period of time.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the members want to hear the answer to this, somehow.

any event, you'll remember that the Premier went on provincial

television to answer a number of questions on that subject and go over

the complete topic in the full context. That was all a part of the

debate that took place at that time.

MR. BARBER: The

minister's reply is evasive, absurd and basically irresponsible. Nine

thousand dollars was wasted because the Deputy Premier requested that

the Government Production Centre

put together a propaganda hour for

Social Credit regarding the constitution. Nine thousand dollars wasted

later, there was no TV show. The money was misspent for no value at

all. If the government really believes that it's entitled to use

taxpayers money to propagate its own weird views of the Canadian

constitution, at least you'd think a television program might have

materialized. They didn't even go that far, because they knew they

couldn't get away with it. But they wasted $9,000, thanks to the Deputy

Premier.

The Provincial Secretary is also evasive because I

have now asked four times and he has yet to reply even once to my

question about how he justifies $14,000 given to the Sedawies by their

friend Doug Heal to prepare a TV script to tell

[ Page 8712 ]

cabinet ministers to keep their flies up and their trousers down. How can you possibly justify that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, do we have to listen to this balderdash?

MR. BARBER:

You don't have to listen to it; you can leave. He has to listen because

he's responsible for that waste. We think he has to reply, because his

ministry is responsible for that waste. If you want to see the script,

you can. In your case, maybe you don't need it. In the case of other of

your colleagues, they clearly do; their personal images are appalling.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The committee will please come to order. I'll ask all

hon. members to address the estimates before us. The first member for

Victoria continues, uninterrupted.

MR. BARBER: At one

point in the script, purportedly a legitimate public expenditure — in

fact completely unethical; Heal made a present to the Sedawies courtesy

of the taxpayer — the following information is obtained: "Dress

according to your position. Don't be flashy, but don't be too casual."

Cabinet ministers are then told: "Avoid white; avoid black, or this can

happen." Then they have a picture of a man in a black suit, standing in

front of a black drape. "Avoid vivid colours. Men look best in varying

shades of grey, browns or the darker blues, with pastel or off-white

shirts and ties with subtle pattern. It is very important that women

dress according to their occupation. There is a danger that a sexy

outfit may be misunderstood by the audience."

What is this

trash doing in a script prepared for the Government Production Centre?

What is this junk that you have asked us to pay for? If the Socreds

want to take "How to Look Pretty on TV" lessons, let them do so at

their own expense. This junk should never have been paid for by the

taxpayers. This junk is an utterly improper expenditure of public

funds. Obviously even the Socreds would never pay for it. Their own

party, tennis-shoed and blue-rinsed, would never have approved this

nonsense, so they were never even asked. Who did pay for it? The

taxpayers, as usual, under the regime of Social Credit doing business

as usual, prostituting an otherwise legitimate government purpose for

the sordid political purpose of Social Credit — in this case, telling

cabinet ministers how to look good.

To reiterate and

conclude, when the Government Production Centre makes films about

highway safety or infant development, that's good stuff. We support it,

and we will vote in favour of an appropriation to continue to support

it. We have never taken objection to that. We have not before, we do

not today, and we will not in the future. Those are purposeful,

rational and useful public expenditures. But this trash, which the

minister hasn't even attempted to justify, was never a proper

expenditure in the first place. I reiterate my demand that you send

this bill to Bernie Smith, and let Mr. Smith take a collection among

the Socreds in cabinet — there are 21 of them; half of them are

millionaires anyway — and let the millionaires in cabinet pay the

$14,000 that you want the taxpayers to pay the Sedawies. It's an

expenditure, by the way, which has unfortunately already taken place.

It's

not too late for the Socreds in cabinet to reimburse the Crown for the

waste of money which they caused through this ridiculous, insupportable

and unjustifiable television script called "TV or Not TV." That was our

question. We know what the minister's answer is. That answer isn't good

enough.

MR. MITCHELL: I have three particular topics

that I would like to discuss with the minister. One of them is the

Green Paper he has put out on the pension. I sincerely recommend that

the government make an extensive study on pensions. I believe that the

important part that we must realize.... We are in a society today

that is not only gravely affected by economic problems, depressions and

no jobs, but by new technology that is making so many of our jobs in

the workforce today redundant. It has been estimated by many people who

have studied it that jobs that are here today will no longer be here

seven years from now.

I think it's so important that studies

be made into the complete portability of all pensions; they should be

completely portable and indexed. I'm not going to get into the detailed

methods of financing any particular program. This is a program that I

believe not only this House but also technicians and the bureaucracy

should study. I seriously believe we should establish a legislative

committee that will tour the province and study pensions for society

and for those in the workforce who are not tied into government jobs,

hospitals, school boards or some of the larger companies; for the true

workforce out there that moves from job to job and works in different

types of industries and is part of the people who build British

Columbia. These are the ones who can no longer go through a lifetime of

hard work to end up on a minimum pension. They have equal rights to a

full, proper, indexed pension. That's something they can build as they

go through their work life.

I strongly recommend to the

minister that he give consideration to a legislative committee to study

this, to go out into the community, to the trade union movement, the

business communities — the employers — to find out what their views and

proposals are, to find out what effect it is having in the workforce,

because we have drifted.... I say we have drifted because our

society has not provided pensions like the ones of those who are

organized, those who are in steady employ, like government or MLAs, and

who have managed to look after for themselves. I think this is

something that we should be looking at.

Secondly, Mr.

Chairman, I would like get some confirmation or answers from the

minister on a proposal that he and I have shared a lot of discussion

and letters on, dealing with the development of the Lampson Street

school in the township of Esquimalt into a Victoria cultural centre. I

know the minister has heard this many