1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6575 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Expo 86 souvenir sales. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6575

Investigation of escort services. Mr. Macdonald –– 6576

Public opinion polls. Mr. Hanson –– 6576

Trade and convention centre. Mr. Barnes –– 6577

Tabling Documents –– 6577

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

On vote 60: minister's office –– 6577

Mr. Williams

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Stupich

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Cocke

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to

recognize and welcome 50 grade 7 students from Mitchell Elementary

School in Richmond, accompanied to the legislative buildings today by

their instructor, Mr. William Jack.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a

constituent of mine who is also a student at the Nanaimo campus of

Malaspina College and president of the students' council there, Mr. Don

Hallbom. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have

two special friends of many members in the House. I'd ask you to

welcome Lloyd and Ruth Chamberlayne. They are presently living in

Langley. They have been ambassadors of British Columbia recently,

touring around the world. Lloyd Chamberlayne was very active in the

Kinsmen Rehabilitation Foundation and is past president of the Canadian

Paraplegic Association, B.C. division. I'd ask the House to make them

welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to make welcome

today one of Victoria's senior stateswomen, residing in James Bay, Mrs.

Clare McAllister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today

we have some people visiting the House; first of all, Mrs. Margaret

Stafford from Reading, England. Accompanying her are Mr. Dennis and

Mrs. Jean Wooster, and along with them a lady from Vancouver, Mrs. Jill

Lang, and her children Jennifer and Vanessa. I ask the House to bid

them welcome.

Oral Questions

EXPO 86 SOUVENIR SALES

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Minister of Tourism. It has

been revealed that Specialty Mfg. Ltd. has been awarded a monopoly

contract involving some $75 million in souvenir sales, virtually

without public tender. Will the minister advise why there were no

public tenders issued on this contract?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would advise the member that the source

of his research is incorrect. The matter of souvenirs and novelties for

Expo did go to public tender.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have it on information available that that

tendering process was not fully opened: that there was not a full

public tender. The question remains.

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Several B.C. business operators have requested

an opportunity to bid with Expo to provide either some or all of the souvenir

requirements. Expo has delegated the authority for subcontracting to Specialty

Mfg. I would ask the minister what the rationale is for the delegation of this

authority to a foreign-owned company.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First, I would remind the member that the

firm in question, Specialty Mfg. Ltd., has been doing business in

British Columbia for quite some time. Granted, they are a subsidiary of

an American company, but they are not a recent company to be

incorporated in British Columbia.

Secondly, when the tenders went public on the novelty/souvenir

business at Expo, several companies that bid realized the tender at

hand was just too large for them to consider; they wanted to bid on

parts of it only. It was a decision of the board of Expo at the time

that the best deal they could make would be with one company, and after

careful scrutiny by the financial committee of the board it was

determined to go with Specialty Mfg. I should point out that while the

total contract could amount to — and probably will — in the

neighbourhood of $75 million, the returns to Expo are significant — in

the area of $22 million to the corporation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another supplementary. There still seems to

be some disagreement in terms of the public tendering of these

contracts. I would ask the minister if he has decided to table the bids

that have been submitted on that contract.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: When it came down to the final bidding on

the contract, there were two companies involved: a firm that is wholly

British Columbia owned, and Specialty Mfg. The other British Columbia

firm subsequently pulled out, and Specialty realized they were bidding

against the corporation itself. The other alternative was for Expo to

take on the job itself. As I said, after careful scrutiny by the

financial committee of the board it was decided that the best possible

financial deal that could be made was the one that they ultimately went

with.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another supplementary to the same minister.

Referring to a recent fraud conviction of a company owned by the same

principals as Specialty Mfg., Expo finance chairman Peter Brown said

yesterday: "We didn't know about the fraud conviction. We had no way of

knowing it would have been a major consideration." As a member of the

Expo board, why did the minister not request a full investigation

before a contract of this size was awarded? I believe that's what

normally occurs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I said, the in-house counsel for Expo

as well as the financial committee investigated the company to their

satisfaction. At the time of the awarding of the contract, there was no

knowledge of the indictment regarding another subsidiary and the New

Orleans world's fair. Had there been knowledge of that, the member is

quite right, it could possibly have affected the decision. But this

past weekend the chairman struck a committee comprised of three members

of the board, in-house counsel and outside counsel considered to be the

best in the field, to examine whether the corporation was at risk or

whether Specialty had given the corporation cause to breach the

contract, and the answers came back negative.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a new question to the minister

regarding conflict-of-interest guidelines with respect to the issuing

of Expo contracts. The minister recently said that the

conflict-of-interest guidelines that had been drafted are perhaps the

most stringent guidelines in Canada. Has the

[ Page 6576 ]

minister decided to table the conflict-of- interest guidelines under which the Expo corporation presently operates?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have no qualms about tabling such

information, and I will request it from the Expo board at the next

meeting. I am certain that the board, rather than try to conceal such

conflict-of-interest guidelines, would be most happy to provide them to

this House, as they are possibly the most stringent that have ever been

laid down for any Crown corporation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Supplementary to the minister. In view of the

public interest in matters relating to public expenditures by Expo, and

the awarding of several major contracts under curious circumstances,

has the minister decided to table minutes of meetings of the board of

directors over the past two years?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The decisions of the board are made public; the minutes are not.

INVESTIGATION OF ESCORT SERVICES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the

Attorney-General. Did the Attorney-General instigate, or was the

investigation made with his knowledge and/or approval? I'm talking

about the investigation into escort services in the city of Victoria

that began some months ago.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the investigation was not one

that I initiated but was one that the joint forces of the RCMP and the

Victoria city police had already launched in this area into certain

escort services.

[2:15]

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the Attorney-General another question:

has the Attorney-General had discussions with the officers or

prosecutors involved, either directly or through one of his agents

speaking for him, in the course of this investigation leading up to the

charges, and including a meeting within the last two weeks with an

officer of the national crime intelligence service?

HON. MR. SMITH: The short answer to that would be no. The

discussions that I had were some time ago, and they were not with the

persons who were dealing with the laying of charges. I've had no

discussion with such persons directly or indirectly.

MR. MACDONALD: Can the Attorney-General explain why, when the

electronic surveillance — which was by camera and telephone tap and

audio intercepts — was underway for the period from February 8 to April

8 of this year, the charges are restricted to a period of eight days

only, namely February 14 to February 2 1?

HON. MR. SMITH: I most certainly can. I asked the same

question at the time. If the inference of that in any way is that I or

someone acting on may advice selected a period in which charges should

be laid and therefore excluded another period or another person, it is

unequivocably denied and did not occur. But the time period of February

14 to February 21 was selected by the police to be the time-frame to

identify persons who were employed by the company and to obtain

evidence on those persons during that period. That was the surveillance

time period. Surveillance was officially discontinued following that

period. There was some other surveillance that occurred later,

apparently, but it was not the frame in which the police had selected

for all their evidence to lay charges. There is no sinister reason for

that, hon. member, I can assure you. I asked the same question at the

time. I can assure you that there was no input from me or my office,

directly or indirectly, in selecting times or persons or events that

would be the subject of charges, nor were any representations made in

any way to any prosecutor.

MR. MACDONALD: One other question to the Attorney-General.

The prosecution in this case is taking the position that all of the

electronic evidence, except that within these eight days, should be

excluded and not made available in the usual way to defence counsel.

Why is the prosecutor, who acts in the name of the Attorney-General,

taking that position?

HON. MR. SMITH: Not being the prosecutor and not instructing

the prosecutor and not being involved in the day-to-day conduct of

these cases or the decisions that are made as to what interception

evidence should be admitted or not, I can't answer that question. But I

certainly recall from my own experience as a prosecutor, in cases

involving surveillance, that it was often a decision that a prosecutor

made to limit the surveillance evidence to a time-frame and not to

broaden it and try to catch in the net all sorts of persons or

individuals against whom maybe there was not other evidence — to try to

limit your case and to select your charges on the basis of that

material that you can clearly prove from corroborative evidence. It may

have been for reasons of that kind. But as I say, I have made it a

point to keep at arm's length from this and other cases and would do

so, and I have not made those inquiries. I don't know.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Minister of Education,

Mr. Speaker. Martin Goldfarb of Goldfarb Consultants on the weekend

said that he has recently done strategic polling for the provincial

government in the area of education. How many tax dollars have been

used for this strategic polling around education, and will the minister

table the questionnaire and the results?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It is correct, Mr. Speaker, that Goldfarb

and associates did do some polling for the provincial government with

respect to the Ministry of Education — for the exact amount of the

account I am not sure. I can make the appropriate inquiries. As for

tabling the report, I will take that question as notice, but I doubt

very much if I am prepared to table the report.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Tourism. Mr. Goldfarb, in the same interview, said he has conducted

similar strategic polling for the government regarding tourism issues.

My question is: how many tax dollars, how many public dollars, have

been used for this strategic polling around tourism, and will the

minister undertake to table the questionnaire and the results of that

polling in this House?

[ Page

6577 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer firstly, Mr. Speaker, is that I will endeavour

to find out if there is any truth in the question that there was polling done

on behalf of my ministry. If there was, then I will bring the information back

to that member.

TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Tourism as

well. The provincial government has already lost millions of dollars of

tourist business in the province of British Columbia through its

failure to strike an operating agreement for the Canada Place

convention centre. According to a recent Equity magazine report....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: What's the problem? I would like to ask the

Minister of Tourism.... In light of the interjections, I'll put it to

you straight: has a deal been struck already and is the government

waiting for the opportune moment to announce that it is now going to be

operating a trade and convention centre?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, once again the member's

research leading up to his question is totally inaccurate. I don't know

where he gets his information or where he does his research, but I am

told by the people close to the convention centre that to date not one

dollar's worth of business has been lost. All I can do is say that the

people that have given me this information are those in the convention

business, and therefore I would tend to rely more heavily on that

information than on that on which the member bases his question.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled statements pursuant to sections 41.6, 43 and 45 of the Financial Administration Act.

Mr. Speaker tabled financial statements in accordance with

provisions of

section 19.2 of the Auditor-General Act, 1976,

chapter 3;

also the 1984 annual report of the ombudsman.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Provincial Secretary estimates, I wish to defer to the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister might

advise us if it's the regular pattern in his ministry to substantially

increase contracts over a short period of time, particularly with McKim

Advertising, the so-called agent of record. I note that they increased

the amount that would be paid or budgeted for McKim during the election

period in 1983 by some $2 million. I note from a public accounts

document, audit control No. 6412058, that the senior vice-president of

advertising for McKim in the Bentall Centre was simply advised by this

minister that the March 31 date of their contract would be extended to

June 1983 and the amount would be increased from $4,157,000 to

$6,172,000, so that there was $2 million more in advertising during

that election and pre-election period. You go through those vouchers —

they're feet thick, literally — and spot advertising in every available

newspaper in the province, on every radio station and on every

television station.

Maybe the minister can advise us if it's standard procedure to

increase the advertising fees for McKim by as much as $2 million in the

pre-election period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have some

difficulty answering ancient history. Questions from ancient history

are being put to me by members, giving voucher numbers that they've

looked at. They attempt to leave some aura of suspicion over the

advertising budget of this ministry. You know, we're not dealing with

that particular budget today. He's talking about two or three years

back.

This morning the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made some

wild accusations about money paid to McKim in March 1983 for TV spots

in the amount of $87, 271.50. He suggested that these were just prior

to the election and that the advertising was basically political

advertising. That's absolutely false information that the member for

New Westminster brought to the House this morning. I've listened to a

lot of these innuendoes and this false information coming to the House.

You know, because they don't have the information, they manufacture

it to suit their own political purposes. The $87,000 payment to McKim

that was made in April 1983, which is journal voucher 036775, was an

accounting procedure to set the payment up as a prepayment for the next

fiscal year –– 1983-84, for Tourism ministry advertising. It's Tourism

advertising made up of a variety of spots — some in eastern Canada,

some in Edmonton, some in Calgary, some in Hamilton — and they're

suggesting that this advertising was done for election purposes. I get

a little fed up when they dig up ancient history and half the story,

and manufacture the rest, and suggest that the government's using this

advertising budget for political purposes. All I can say to that is

it's nonsense — manufactured nonsense — from the opposition.

[2:30]

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister who pretends to know so much

can tell us when he is supposed to be accountable in this chamber for

the kind of nonsense that goes on. The minister knows the system in

terms of public accounts. The information that's available is only

until the spring of last year. The information that is available to

members of this House is till the spring of last year. If we're going

to get some accountability, the time is now. You can talk about ancient

history all you like; you're part of it. The numbers here are $4

million to $6 million for McKim, increased during that election period.

I want to know why that happened. I, like the member for Victoria,

want to know why you don't have any guidelines around this place

anymore. If you want to deal with some current history, I want to know

why you're peddling all those

[ Page 6578 ]

ads on television right now, in terms of that phony partnership for renewal that was such a turkey that it would not fly.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Just a moment, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Please take your seat. Will the second

member for Vancouver East please take his seat. Thank you. Now it's

understandable that we may have differences of opinion from time to

time. We certainly seem to be having one now. However, it is most

unparliamentary for more than one member to be speaking at a time. The

second member for Vancouver East has taken his place in debate and will

be afforded every parliamentary courtesy and be allowed to speak

without interruption.

MR. WILLIAMS: We appreciate the dulcet tones, Mr. Chairman.

But the point is that there is advertising that's been going on this

spring on BCTV during the newscasts, trying to patch up the image of

this administration. It costs a bundle. It's that turkey called the

economic partnership for renewal. It hasn't even sold.... I still don't

remember it. That turkey couldn't be sold to anybody. It became such a

problem that the Premier's gone off to Korea, Japan and elsewhere

because he hasn't been able to peddle that one in British Columbia.

But what I want to know is how much we have been spending on that

particular program currently, since the minister only wants to talk

about current programs. I wonder if the minister is prepared to discuss

those ads with the CRTC, since they're clearly designed so that they

will appear as part of the newscast and not the phony commercials that

indeed they are. I want to know if he's prepared to discuss those

advertisements with the CRTC, because they're clearly an abuse. The

attempt of the government in terms of that kind of phony image-making

for themselves is to try and make them appear like they're part of the

newscast, not commercials. It's the kind of insidious thing they did in

the previous election period with Mr. Latremouille, much to the chagrin

of some others.

There has clearly been an insidious game financed by the people of

British Columbia, financed by the government, to appear like it's news

on the newscast when in fact it's one of your phony ads. We've got the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) on there doing his particular number in terms of trying to

tell us that everything is rosy in the garden of British Columbia,

trying to make it appear like it is part of the newscast.

I want the minister to advise us whether he's prepared to discuss

this matter with the CRTC, since clearly they've been involved in

misleading advertising on the newscasts currently.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Vancouver East, I guess, is

entitled to his opinion that we have misleading advertising. I tend to

disagree with the member and his twisted logic on that point of view. I

have not received any complaints from the CRTC. I think that Partners

in Enterprise is an excellent program. I think it's one which really

highlights the positive initiatives of business and government. And I

think it's a time in which we must have some positive thinking, to show

the kind of dual relationship there is between government and

enterprise out there, rather than the doom and gloom we get from the

opposition. I think it's something positive. After the very difficult

economic times we've had in British Columbia, I think there's a need

for some positive attitudes out there. And that's essentially what this

advertising program does: it attempts to inspire people to achieve

job-creating initiatives in British Columbia. There's nothing wrong

with that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, you know, those willy-nillies across the way laugh away. But when it came to the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Temperate language is always a hallmark of good debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, is "willy-nilly" intemperate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's a reference to other members, and I find it unparliamentary. Please proceed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nilly-willies — I'll just swing it around.

Seriously, I think those ads are excellent. The price tag is half of

what the NDP in Manitoba spent on their Jobs Fund program advertising.

They spent twice as much in promoting a program that was in place in

Manitoba. These socialists across the way attempt to leave the

impression that they're against advertising. The only time those

socialists across the way favour advertising is when they're in

government. In four years the advertising budget of the socialist

government in Manitoba increased by 158 percent. Needless to say,

there's a need for advertising, which is recognized by that shaky

socialist government in Manitoba.

We're doing advertising. I think this is a positive program we have

in British Columbia, which is costing half of the kind of money

expended in Manitoba for their Jobs Fund program.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister can tell me what half is. Since he wants to be so factual, what's half? Half of what?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll answer you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've been recognized, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm just telling the member to make sure he's sitting down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll look after that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The province of Manitoba expended $1.1 million on their jobs fund program; our advertising program is $560,000 —

half.

MR. WILLIAMS: We're being told it cost $560,000 to dress that turkey, a turkey that has been abandoned by the

[ Page 6579 ]

Premier, who has now flown far away. Five hundred

thousand–plus to dress that turkey — my God! At a time when there are

people lining up at the food banks and all the rest of it, you've got

over half a million dollars to dress up that job that you've been

trying to peddle. It's incredible. You were able to increase the budget

by $2 million, in the election period, for McKim Advertising — it was

just by accident that it was in the election period. All it takes is a

simple letter to Mr. Machesney, the vice-president, saying: "By the

way, dear old Mac, the number has now gone up $2 million. It was $4

million, it's now $6 million, available for spot radio all over British

Columbia — just by accident." That's the way the grease pit is mined in

this particular operation. That's the way it's dealt with.

Films. Great films are made under this minister. Let's look at some

of those. They actually decided to film northeast coal. I don't think

they've got the last

chapter yet, but they sure spent quite a few bucks

on the first chapter. Who would you hire? I'm sure you'd put it to

tender. I'm sure you'd want to see if there was somebody like David

Suzuki, somebody who is really fine in the film business. I'm sure

you'd want people like that.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Exactly, you've got it. You may be slow at times, but you're fast today.

What do you think you'd pay for a script if you wanted a script for

northeast coal? Ten thousand dollars is what you'd pay just for the

preliminary writing of the script. Then you bill. What would be the

first bill you'd send, in terms of beginning to film and locating

northeast coal in this particular project? What do you think? You've

already embarked on the restraint program. You've already told the

folks out there: "Boy, we don't have any money for frills." What would

be the first amount you'd receive and approve? The number in March 1984

for the first invoice for the film on northeast coal was $112,358. And

I forgot: who would get the job? Why, I guess it would have to be a guy

who was an old buddy who had hung around the Premier's office for quite

awhile, wouldn't it? Mr. Dave Brown, that's who got the job. Then he

invoices again for video work, and so on: $4,666.67. Then he invoices

again, $4,666.67; then another, $1,001.91; and then $376; and then

$75,249.33 — $218,318.60 for the film on northeast coal, for just the

film to their old friend in the Premier's office, endorsed by old Doug

Heal. That's the total.

But then maybe you'd want other films from your old buddy. What

other films might you get from old Dave Brown? There's still a

chapter

to come on northeast coal, because the location problem hasn't been

dealt with yet, I'm sure, on the film, but what about the rest of the

films Dave Brown did during the period of restraint? Well, there's one

on promoting B.C. and its opportunities. Well now, that's appropriate

in a time of a Social Credit depression. A total on that was, I think,

$98,000 — something or other. Then, production of an informative film

on education in B.C. Well, that would be worthwhile. I wonder if they

have the

chapter on removing elected school boards. There's all kinds

of new work for Dave Brown: (1) relocating the hole, (2) off with the

heads of the school board — more work. That was $56,000. Then an

informal film on health care in British Columbia, and that's

substantial as well. Then production of stuff for the Knowledge

Network, and on it goes.

So you know, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars

for propaganda films to enhance the image of Social Credit, all at the

time when you're publicly mouthing for restraint, and saying that we

can't afford this, we can't afford that. The Rape Relief Centres —

close them down; food banks — we got no money for the food banks. But

at the same time, you've got money — hundreds of thousands of dollars —

for your old buddies. You're running the biggest grease pit in this

building in terms of this operation. You check the names. They're the

old hacks and flacks of Social Credit — old deputy ministers, you name

it. You start going through the list — some of your old buddies — and

the numbers are very significant.

It's not good enough to get up like you did this morning and say: "I

don't know the man's name. He's not on the payroll now." The stuff is

all there in the vouchers. Somebody was signing the cheques. It's all

there; the $5,000 a month for Ogden, just for filing the news. He's not

on the payroll; no, he's a corporation and he bills under the name of

his company, and sits on his houseboat with his little VHS and plugs

in. Any steno for $1,500 a month could do it and have seven hours a day

left over — you know, an hour a day and have seven hours left over.

That's the kind of operation you're running. Consulting stuff all over

the place.

[2:45]

People in effect take on the role of deputy ministers, get paid as

consultants, people like Ian Stewart billing five, seven thousand a

month to their nice little company — it's called Appin Consultants —

and on it goes. It's just a grease pit operation that's going on in

terms of feeding consultants and corporate names. The films and all the

rest of it are there. You make the old administrations of Quebec look

like rank amateurs when it comes to this kind of work. I'm afraid that

it's endless, and the irony is that it should happen in a so-called

time of restraint. You know, the public trough has really been

available, and $2 million extra for McKim just shows how available it's

been.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've just heard from a minister from the

past, who is critical about an advertising budget to promote the

establishment of industry in British Columbia with an expenditure of

$560,000, a member who was a former minister in a former government

whose major hallmark and major record as a government of British

Columbia was that of waste and extravagance.

I want to tell you, I'll never forget the overrun they had — $103,000,000

overrun in one ministry of government. Before they realized there had been an

overrun, somebody had to tell them. Can you imagine the Premier of the day telling

the people of British Columbia: "Oh, that's just a clerical error. Blame

some clerk on an overexpenditure." I want to tell you, I've never seen

such waste and extravagance in British Columbia as when the socialists were

in power between 1972 and 1975, when that member for Vancouver East was a cabinet

minister and lived lavishly off the taxpayers of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. To all members of the

committee, we have had some discussion about past accounts. We are, at

this point, dealing with the estimates of 1985-1986, and I think the

committee would be well served if we could stick with those estimates

and the responsibilities of the minister whose vote is before us now.

[ Page 6580 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Could I mention the expensive oriental rugs the former Minister of Forests had in his office?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that would not be appropriate. Please, to vote 60.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just want to correct one exaggeration from

the member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) as he was speaking this morning. I

didn't keep any notes, but I happened to be going through some material

that I have here. He has a tendency to exaggerate, overstating the case

or manufacturing the case. He went on to say that the mailing cost for

mailing B.C. Government News

was $160,000. It was one-quarter of the figure quoted by the member. I

just want to straighten out the record for that member for Victoria,

who tends to exaggerate virtually everything he utters.

MR. HANSON: This minister's response to any requests for

information or any question is to go on to some kind of spurious

attack. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) raised the

film production aspect of this minister's responsibilities. I'd like to

just raise in this House something much more recent than the access

we've had in public accounts vouchers.

Recently, around June 1 — I don't have the exact day — there was a

photo opportunity in the Coquihalla for the Premier. This probably is

very much along the same lines as the photo opportunities of the

northeast coal — the Dave Brown films, the Jem Production films. What

do we have? We have a helicopter for $2,000 or $3,000. Who paid for the

helicopter? They arrived late. They wanted to lower a big steel girder

for a two and a half minute ad. They were late, so there was overtime.

I'm talking about the Brittain Steel camp at Dry Gulch in the

Coquihalla. Familiar with it?

Here's what we have: four film crews.

MR. BLENCOE: Four?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who paid for it?

MR. HANSON: I'm going to ask who paid for it. How much and

who paid for it? Who paid the overtime for the workers when the arrival

of the Premier was several hours late? There is a suggestion that it is

$2,500 in overtime alone, just to get the girder there behind the

Premier. Think about it: the food lines are longer, the social services

are cut back, the counsellors in the schools are cut back for the

learning disabled kids, but we have money to send four film crews off

to the Coquihalla, pay overtime and rent a helicopter.

Here's one that I think is absolutely incredible. They wanted a flat

place for the Premier to stand, so the lookout over Dry Gulch and the

bridge under construction in that site was filled with gravel in order

to provide a smooth walking surface for the photo op. Six thousand

dollars so that he could stand on a flat surface.

Okay, how are we doing so far? Four film crews. How much? The

overtime at the Brittain Steel camp to wait for the Premier to arrive.

How much? The overtime cost and the helicopter. How much was the

helicopter? Is this all in the blanket exclusion — the

pre-authorization, the preapproval for flat gravel beds in gulches so

that the Premier can stand on a flat surface? How much? A wooden podium

and a viewing platform were built. How much? They breakfasted all the

tour members in Chilliwack, lunch at the Miller construction camp. Who

pays, and how much? Then they had what they call a "heavy pastry

service." What's a heavy pastry service? Gooey buns for the boys. This

was at the Brittain Steel camp. It's estimated that the gooey buns and

the wages involved $1,300.

So how're we doing now? We've got the flat place for them to stand,

$6,000; the helicopter, $2,000 to $3,000; the overtime bill, $2,500;

breakfast at the Miller construction camp at Chilliwack. Then we go on

for the heavy pastry, $1,300 — for a two- and-a-half-minute commercial.

This is restraint. This is cost-effectiveness. This is the taxpayers'

money, spent under this minister. What do you think, Mr. and Mrs.

British Columbia? It's so wasteful!

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: My question? What are these costs? Was this

minister aware of the photo opportunity? Who paid for those four film

crews? Was it under GIS? Was it contracted to Dave Brown? Who was in

charge? How much? What was the overall cost breakdown?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I redirected the member here a

while back on a question on the order paper regarding B.C. Buildings

Corporation. I indicated to him that he should ask the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) as the minister responsible for

BCBC; that he was in error asking me that question. I have to once

again alert the member that he's asking the wrong minister the

question, because there are no costs associated with the Ministry of

Provincial Secretary and Government Services on any expenditures

associated with the opening of the Coquihalla Highway. Any costs

associated with that were borne by the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways. You'd better ask them.

MR. HANSON: Whose film crews were they? Were they under

contract to the Provincial Secretary? Were they under contract to McKim

Advertising? Were they under contract to government information

services?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's my information that the opening of the

Coquihalla Highway is a responsibility that rests with the Minister of

Transportation and Highways, who picked up the costs for that

particular event.

MR. HANSON: Is the minister advising this House that

government information services was not involved in that photo

opportunity for the Premier?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm saying this is not a Provincial

Secretary responsibility. It's a responsibility that rests with the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Provincial Secretary is

informing the Provincial Secretary on the matter. Perhaps he has more

information that he could provide to the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've nothing further to say.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members — particularly the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) —

[ Page

6581 ]

interjections are unparliamentary at the best of

times. Innuendo and imputation of dishonourable motive is even more

unparliamentary. I will ask all hon. members to curtail any comments

with respect to another hon. member.

MR. HANSON: What we have then from this minister is a

redirecting to another minister, who may or may not be funding this

particular photo scam. What will happen is that this two and a half

minutes of film will find its way into the kind of advertising program

that was discussed by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) in association with the six o'clock news. There will be a

two-and-a-half-minute film paid for by the taxpayers, with a girder

coming down and the Premier in his hardhat standing on a flat surface,

paid for by taxpayers. Everyone around will have a bellyful of heavy

pastry, paid for by the taxpayer, digesting a previous

taxpayer-paid-for breakfast, flown there by a taxpayer-paid-for

helicopter. Four film crews paid for by taxpayers, whether it's the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Municipal Affairs or the

Premier's office itself. That's the kind of accountability we have in

this province on expenditure of public money. It's a travesty. It's a

shell game.

Through the procedures and the hiding behind other ministers, why

can't he as a minister in charge of the advertising of this province

explain to the House what the overall communications program is?

Because that is what the communications program is: the lead-in to the

next election. And the people of this province had better understand

that they are financing this communications plan to the tune of $20

million.

How many jobs would that be, divided by $20,000 or $25,000 a year?

There are a lot of people in this province that would like to be

earning $25,000 a year now — $25,000 into $20 million, or $43 million

including the Expo advertising budget, would put a lot of people back

to work.

Well, we've talked about advertising; we've talked about polling. We

get no information. In question period today we get acknowledgement

from the Minister of Education: yes, we're polling. They're polling in

every ministry. They're paying up to $55,000 a pop for some of these

attitudinal polls; $55,000 would put two households off welfare and

back on the line. But instead, what do we get? We get polling for

manipulation of the public.

[3:00]

Rather than a program based on what top-quality education we should

be providing in British Columbia, we get polls conducted by a Social

Credit government on how far we can strip back public education. I

realize, Mr. Chairman, that I'm alluding to other ministries, but the

overall responsibility for public opinion polling and advertising

really rests with the minister sitting there. It really is a shame.

We're going to leave this for the time being. He has other aspects

to his ministry that are equally disastrous. One is the administration

of democracy in the province of British Columbia, under the Election

Act.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We had introduced and passed in this House a redistribution, and this side

of the House moved amendments. They went something like this. We wanted the

young people in British Columbia, the 18-year-olds, to have the same right

as 18-year-olds have in voting in the national elections in Canada. That minister

voted against it. In the International Youth Year declared by the United Nations,

we moved an amendment to the Election Act to allow 18-year-olds the right to

vote. That government voted against it. In other words, an 18-year-old is enfranchised

own provincial government. I'd like 18-year-olds in this province to know

that that minister voted against it.

We also moved amendments to allow people who are disabled or shut in

and cannot get to the polls the right to vote. This minister is

responsible for the democratic election process in this province. He

voted against it. I know a woman in the city of Victoria who has

multiple sclerosis, and she cannot vote in the election because she

cannot get to the polls. She happens to have dual citizenship and is a

citizen of France. She can vote in the French elections, but she can't

vote in British Columbia. We moved an amendment that the provisions of

the Manitoba elections act for voting for shut-ins be brought in in

British Columbia. That minister in charge of the democratic process in

this province voted against it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. In the estimates,

you are dealing with the administrative responsibilities of the

minister as such, and there should not be a reflection on previous

votes or decisions of the House. Your comments with respect to how a

member has voted or has not voted in the past would be out of order.

MR. HANSON: What I am trying to convey to the House and to

the minister is that as the person responsible for the voting process

he has been given a sacred trust to administer a fair, impartial, open

and free democratic election. The administration of his ministry, I and

this side of the House maintain, is not a free, open, unencumbered and

unimpeded election process. Can you imagine why a government would make

it harder to get on the voters' list rather than easier? He reduced the

number of days after the election is called in which a person in

British Columbia is entitled to get on the voters' list. It's a fact.

To get onto the voters' list....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, not that many moons ago we had

a full debate on the amendments to the Election Act, and all these

points that the member is raising now are points that were raised

during the debate in second reading and committee stage of that bill.

Now I hope that we aren't, after having passed legislation here just

three or four months ago, going to start, now that the legislation has

been given royal assent, all over again debating each and every point

of that legislation, on which each and every member of this House had

ample opportunity to make his point heard and to express his views.

Now we did debate at length the Election Act, and I hope that we're

not going to start going through the debate of the Election Act all

over again, because I'll just have to go downstairs and get my notes

and waste some time. Maybe these socialists want to hang around for a

while....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: If they do. I want to tell them I'm prepared to give them a full debate on the Election Act.

[ Page 6582 ]

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. second member for Vancouver East is

aware, I am confident, that when the Chair calls for order, all members

should take their seat.

The Chair would be pleased to have other comments on the minister's point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister was being more orderly than usual, so I thought everything was all right, but.... My apologies.

I wonder though, you know. The minister seems a little bit touchy about that issue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, not touchy at all.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, no, not at all. Right. That's what I thought.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is on a point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. The estimates, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member take his seat, because the

minister had raised a point of order. The Chair appreciates that

reflecting on previous legislation, in essence, should not be conducted

in estimates and would normally be out of order. But the minister's

administrative responsibility under that legislation would be in order

in the debate of estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think that's a good place to start.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have not been recognized.

But such debate on the minister's administrative responsibilities should not reflect on the vote.

Prior to being interrupted by the minister on a point of order, the

Chair had recognized the first member for Victoria. The member will

continue.

MR. HANSON: I defer to the member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, you know, the minister really was

a little touchy on that one. I don't think it was the rules of the

House that were concerning him.

What we've got now under the terms of this new statute that this

minister administers is a situation where there are going to be two

MLAs from Saanich, with 70,000 people, and one MLA from Esquimalt, with

60,000. That raises some fundamental issues about what democracy is all

about. What it does is dissipate the vote of the people in Esquimalt by

almost a half. Now it happens that the people in Esquimalt vote for

this side of the House and the people from Saanich so far have voted

for the other side. But what it raises is a basic question about

democracy itself. This issue was raised in the United States 20 years

ago, and it had to go to the courts to be resolved. The pattern now in

the United States is that if there's a difference of over about 2.5

percent, the courts throw out the rotten distribution plans. What we're

talking about is hundreds of percent in British Columbia.

If this minister is so sure that he's doing the right job by the

people of British Columbia, my question is this: is the minister

prepared to take this statute of his to the courts, in terms of a

reference, and get some comment and judgment in view of the new charter

that we have? I think if the minister really cares about democracy, we

now have a charter in Canada in terms of individual rights, and surely

the critical individual right is the right to vote and not have that

right diluted in any way, as it is in the United States.

My question is: is the minister prepared to take this matter to the

courts to get some assurance in terms of what he's done and in terms of

assurance that we indeed have a statute here that meets the new

requirements of the charter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 60...?

MR. WILLIAMS: My question is: on this issue, in terms of

fundamental human rights, of full voting rights for all citizens of

British Columbia, is the minister prepared to test his new statute with

the courts to settle this question in terms of the new national charter

that we have?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member obviously wasn't

here during the debate of the amendments to the Election Act. It's not

a new statute; it's the same statute, with some amendments. It's the

same statute. He's suggesting that I should take the legislation and

throw it into the courts. Talking about the old Election Act, there

weren't very many changes. I don't know if there were any changes made

during the NDP years between 1972 and 1975. There were no concerns then

about dual ridings in British Columbia. All of a sudden the concerns

have come to the surface, since that crew was in opposition. They

weren't concerned when they were in government. I have no intentions of

referring what is basically the most modern and up-to-date elections

act in all of Canada to the courts for any decision.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm confident all hon. members

are aware that in estimates you discuss and debate the estimates of the

minister and the administrative functions of the minister, not

legislation as such. You would debate the minister's responsibilities

that are delegated to him under the legislation or for which he is

responsible, but not the legislation per se or suggested changes to

existing legislation.

MR. WILLIAMS: What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the

minister himself should take this statute to the courts; that if one

cares about democracy, if one has any intention of moving toward

equality in our democratic system, then it demands that we move to one

person, one vote. What we have here is the minister from Moose Pasture

arguing for mountaintop votes. I think that we now have some protection

in Canada. One would hope that the minister would be the first to move

towards protecting individual rights as far as voting and elections are

concerned. He can very well say we have the most modern statute in

Canada. What does that mean? It means he amended it more recently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The patience of the Chair is being tried. Possibly the member could reflect on the

[ Page

6583 ]

earlier comments of the Chair, that debate in

estimates is on the minister's administrative functions and not on the

legislation or proposed changes of the legislation.

MR. WILLIAMS: What I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is for the

minister to use public funds to take this statute to the courts, in

terms of dealing with the question of whether it's adequate relative to

the new charter. Is the minister prepared to take this matter to the

courts to test its adequacy vis-à-vis the new charter?

[3:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I really answered that

question when I stood before. The member's taking this opportunity, Mr.

Chairman, to put forward his representation-by-population point of

view: one man, one vote. In other words, he's against the historical

right of representation by rural ridings here in British Columbia, like

the member for Atlin. The people from Atlin have the historical right

of representation from that particular riding. I want to say that if

the member for Vancouver East had his way, they wouldn't have

representation in rural British Columbia as they have it today. If

that's the NDP philosophy, I'll tell you, I'm prepared to fight an

election any day on that philosophy. The people of rural British

Columbia will never accept the premise from downtown Vancouver that

they shouldn't have the right of adequate representation in this

Legislature, and that's the point of view you're attempting to put

across. It's not a point of view that I'm prepared to accept; it's not

a point of view that the people of British Columbia are prepared to

accept either.

MR. WILLIAMS: He says sure, he'd test. He'd test by his

rigged game. That's the whole point: this outfit wants a rigged game.

The member from Moose Pasture — you bet. That's exactly what you want.

What I'm saying is that if people are to have protection in this

province against the kind of games you people play, the only hope is

the courts, and that's an irony indeed. One who has been a member of

this Legislature as long as that minister should be prepared to protect

this basic right of citizens and be prepared to go to court and get his

legislation tested because of this critical question of the new charter

of individual rights.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member continues to expound his

representation-by-population point of view. I know that when they were

in government many years ago — the only time in the last 50 years that

that socialist crew have had an opportunity of being government — they

did spend a lot of taxpayers' money on a redistribution commission

which never saw the light of day. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of

taxpayers' money was expended on redistribution that never saw the

light of day. They had the opportunity to get rid of the representation

of rural British Columbia which the member for Vancouver East so much

wishes that the people from the interior of British Columbia shouldn't

have, the kind of representation they have now. That the representation

and the power should dominate in Vancouver, should rest in Vancouver —

that's what that member is advocating.

I hope the people of British Columbia listening today to the

attitudes of the socialists over there, when they advocate

representation by population and they have not prepared to give

historical representation in British Columbia.... I want to tell you

that I will tell the people of this province the attitudes of those

socialists about their rights of representation in this chamber, their

right to be heard in British Columbia. I want to tell you the

socialists don't believe that the people of this province have a right

to be heard unless they live in Vancouver. That's the attitude of the

socialists. I come from rural British Columbia, and I'll fight forever

for the right of the people of rural British Columbia to be heard in

this chamber without being dominated by the city of Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has thoroughly enjoyed

second reading of the Election Act. We are now in estimates on vote 60,

and the committee could deal with the administrative functions of the

minister and not other matters that are not the subject matter of this

forum at this time.

MR. ROSE: I was about to observe that if the minister was

going to tell the people of British Columbia all these things, all we

need to do with his kind of volume is just open a window, and that bag

of fetid wind would float right up to Golden. The consequences of all

this is that it's a phony and it's a bum rap to talk about rep by pop

in terms of the rural areas. I mean, who are going to get the new seats

— Boundary-Similkameen, Kamloops? Is that Vancouver? Of course it

isn't. Surrey, Fraser Valley — is that Vancouver?

Look, it isn't a case of rep by pop or not. We all know that there

are certain tolerances built into any election act. We all know that.

We all know that in the federal act, for instance, it's 80 percent, one

way or the other. You know, all of us are well aware of that. What we

object to, and what my people object to, aside from the fact we were

robbed of another MLA by the definition of terms used in this act and

recommended by the McAdam commission, is.... They're mad because for

one thing they don't get an extra MLA and the fact is we don't need 12

more MLAs. We're talking about the cost of government and restraint.

Why do we need 12 more MLAs? I'll tell you why: to make certain that

the Socreds get elected despite the tatters that their current

reputation finds them in. That's why we have this redistribution.

The minister is concerned about rep by pop. Let me give him a few

figures here. Coquitlam-Moody is a riding containing 432 square miles

of rocks and Christmas trees. Would you call that rural? No. It's

called suburban under the act — 432 square miles. Central Fraser Valley

has only 160 square miles, one-third of Coquitlam-Moody's area, and is

designated as rural. Now how can anybody buy that argument? All right,

what about the population? What was the reason for this? If you have a

definition of urban or rural or suburban, it makes a difference to your

tolerances, because if it exceeds your base by 60 percent then you get

an extra member. But if you have a base of 38,000 members in Central

Fraser Valley and you have it called rural, then you get an extra

member. It's just really convenient. It really works out beautifully if

you want to stack the deck, and if the person who is running your

outfit is a man by the name of Mander, and his first name is Gerry,

that's exactly what has happened here. I have a terrible time trying to

explain to my riding why 432 square miles is called suburban — rocks

and Christmas trees and rural areas that the minister defends so loudly

— when Central Fraser Valley, with 160 square miles is called rural.

Why? Because it has a few farms and cow barns? Does that make it rural?

What's the justification for that?

[ Page 6584 ]

So the whole thing was rigged from the beginning. It was rigged from

the Eckardt report, and that was further compounded by the fact that

the

definitions of what is rural and suburban and all the rest of it

were designed to make certain that we had 12 new members which we don't

need, and 11 of that 12 are in Social Credit ridings. But we're going

to beat you anyway, because if we can't beat you.... I withdraw that.

This bunch will beat themselves. There won't be any help from us.

That's why they're doing all this polling.

I would like the minister to respond as to why a riding like mine,

with 42,562 souls, is called suburban, when an urban-rural constituency

with 38,000 gets two members and we get one in Coquitlam-Moody. It

defies any explanation. If you look through the other ridings you'll

probably find the same thing, and it was all done on the

definitions of

rural, suburban, remote, etc. It's not a denial of rural British

Columbia for rep by pop. We can't have precise rep by pop, and any

idiot knows that; but we could at least have tolerances that are

applied fairly and not have the definition of the riding rigged —

blatantly so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has this afternoon, in the last short

while, brought to the attention of hon. members a number of times that

we are on vote 60. We are not in second reading or committee on the

Election Act. Possibly we could have normal, responsible debate on the

administrative functions of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and

Government Services.

MR. BARNES: Vote 60, the minister's office. Right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is to be commended.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back about half an

hour, when the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was discussing

the right of the 18-year-old to the franchise. You're going to suggest

that I'm getting into the Election Act, but nothing could be further

from the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has asked the Chair a question. The answer is in the affirmative.

MR. BARNES: I have no intention of discussing the Election

Act. What I'm discussing are human rights. I'm discussing the

minister's attitude with respect to a

section of the population that by

age is denied a fundamental right which persons of that age in the rest

of Canada are permitted. That's all. This is International Youth. The

minister does administer a great deal of funds with respect to a

variety of activities, hopefully culture, the arts, sports, heritage,

etc. Young people should be his concern, if for no other reason than

that this is International Youth Year, as designated by the United

Nations.

So my question really is the minister's priorities, the minister's

philosophy, the spirit by which he operates his office. There are those

young people in the community who I feel should be represented by that

minister. He should be speaking on behalf of them. In fact, we have a

debate going on in this country concerning rights and freedoms. The

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) has suggested that

certain pieces of legislation should be tested in the courts with

respect to what are basically the rights of the voters in the province.

But the question of equal rights in exercising the franchise is one

that also should be looked at in light of the fact that the issue in

1985 is rights and freedoms. It is a concern of Canadians everywhere.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman. The minister hasn't discussed this topic.

Forget about the legislation; let's talk philosophically. Does the

minister believe that people of 18 years of age should have equal

rights right across this country? Persons of that age group are able to

vote for the Prime Minister of the country and for Members of

Parliament. Why can they not vote for Members of the Legislative

Assembly in British Columbia? That's really the question. I think that

question is going to come up, whether or not the minister is prepared

to deal with it this afternoon, because it contravenes the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms. It's not consistent with federal law, and it is

going to be one of those matters that will have to be dealt with.

If the minister would like to respond to that specific question, I'd be pleased to give him the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

[3:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues.

MR. BARNES: I just wish that the young people in the province

could be here. We've suggested in the past that we need some means of

viewing this assembly through the electronic media, through perhaps

television. I certainly feel that there are times when confrontation is

not appropriate.

I approached this subject sincerely, Mr. Chairman, and I had hoped

the minister would at least stand and give a view on the subject. It is

a serious subject. It's a subject that involves hundreds of thousands

of electors, persons who could be involved in the next provincial

election. I wish I had the numbers. Perhaps the minister knows what the

effects would be if those people had the vote. He knows what would

happen, in light of the awesome policies this government has brought

upon British Columbia in the past two years affecting their lives.

Those policies have affected their opportunities for training and for

education. Those policies have affected their ability to fulfill their

dreams and aspirations, to raise their families, to enjoy the amenities

of life.

The vote would affect them a great deal, and it would affect this

government a great deal, if they had the opportunity to cast one. It is

an issue. It is about time we took the idea of participatory democracy

by all of the citizens seriously. Even those who are under 18 years of

age, Mr. Chairman, should be encouraged to understand the parliamentary

process. That is not the case, unfortunately. We are getting more and

more into a circumvention of the due processes of democracy. We're

seeing a change to a more centralized approach, and a kind of disregard

for encouraging young people to get involved.

Could we not, just for five or ten minutes, have the minister stand

and at least acknowledge that there's a great deal more that could be

done to encourage young people to participate in politics, to be

concerned about who gets elected and what their policies are and how

they affect their lives? Certainly those people who are legally adults

in every other respect should have the right to vote.

I think it's a shame that the minister hasn't felt any duty or

obligation or desire to respond, if not for his government at least for

himself, as one who believes in a democratic process

[ Page 6585 ]

and believes that all of the citizens should have a say and be able to benefit by their choices.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to press. If the minister refuses to respond, I think the record will speak for itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As your previous Chairman has noted, the debate

in Committee of Supply does have limitations. The necessity for

legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in

Committee of Supply. I'm sure all members are aware of that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can’t leave the accusations made by that

member for Vancouver Centre vis-à-vis youth in this province

unanswered. First of all, this ministry is very supportive of the young

people of this province. It's a ministry that probably has more

programs for young people than any other ministry of government. We

spend on the sponsoring not only of the B.C. Games but on sport

activities and culture. In British Columbia we spend millions and

millions of dollars, primarily directed to the young people of British

Columbia. You know, I'm one who likes young people, needless to say — I

should. My wife — primarily, I guess, but I had some role to play —

raised six children. Between the two of us — well, not between us — we

also have seven grandchildren and another one on the way next month.

Mind you, I had nothing to do with it, but nevertheless I guess I did

indirectly. But I have a great appreciation for the young people of

British Columbia. I want to make sure that they have every opportunity,

regardless of race, colour or creed. Everybody should have equal

opportunities in British Columbia. I hope that the young people of this

province will take an active

part in politics, regardless of political

affiliation. I think it's darned important that the young people become

involved in politics, because politics is so important to their way of

life.

On the issue of.... The member says that they should have equal

rights at age 18 on the issue of voting. Well, I think they should have

equal rights at 17, 16, 15 or whatever, but when it comes to voting

there have to be some guidelines. In British Columbia — and it varies

from province to province — we picked the age of 19. The reason we

picked the age of 19 is because the age of majority is 19 in British

Columbia, and we thought there was a need for consistency in that

respect and that's why it's 19. We passed the legislation here just a

few months ago that did not change the age of voting in British

Columbia, but that does not deny the opportunity of young people

participating in politics in British Columbia. It certainly gives them

an opportunity to become familiar with the various political parties,

and the various policies of those political parties so that they're

better informed when it comes time to cast the vote at age 19.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, the committee is reminded that we cannot discuss the necessity for legislation or amendments to legislation.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I also want to

thank the minister for his remarks, remarks that I found to be

distinguished from remarks that he has made in the past, especially

when he was in opposition and we were the government, between 1972 and

1975. It's quite a contrast, I can say that.

He has touched on a couple of points that I'd like to ask him to

elaborate on a little bit further. I appreciate his explanation

respecting the age of majority in the province. In light of the federal

law and in light of the need to fall in line with the rights and

freedoms under the new charter, the age of majority may become a

question. I think this was raised by the second member for Vancouver

East on another matter, but this is the kind of question that may in

fact become an issue, as we have to come in line with the new Charter

of Rights and Freedoms.

I just have one other question. The minister indicated that his

ministry spends millions and millions of dollars on youth programs, and

I don't deny that millions and millions of dollars are being spent. I

know the Lottery Fund is quite a hefty sum of money and I know that the

B.C. Summer and Winter Games enjoy considerable revenues from this

fund, as do probably many other youth organizations through special

grants. What appropriations are made from the consolidated revenue fund

with respect to youth programs, as opposed to those funds that are

allocated through cultural services or through the Lottery Fund?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can get that information for you. You don't want to hear the kind of funding we have under the Lottery Fund for...?

MR. BARNES: Yes, that too.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Okay, while I'm giving the Lottery Fund allocation, maybe I can get the other information for you.

For the 1985-86 fiscal year we have approved $4,665,000 for the

recreation and sport fund, which is an increase of $105,000 over last

year. The Best Ever '88 Summer Olympics is an allocation of $750,000.

That's for the Summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea. The B.C. Games has an

allocation of $1,850.000, which is for the Summer and Winter Games.

I've given you the sports. Do you want to go beyond that? Do you

want to go into the cultural activity? Okay. For the B.C. Festival of

the Arts, which will be held in Prince George in 1986, we have an

allocation of $500,000. The Cultural Fund has an allocation of

$4,886,967, which, incidentally, is an increase of $100,000 over the

previous year. The cultural heritage adviser has an allocation of

$306,500. We have the same kind of allocation for the Heritage Trust —

$1,250,000. The Health Care Research Foundation has $3,150,000, which

is an increase of $150,000 over the previous year.

Those are dollars that are allocated from the Lottery Fund, which should be closely associated with youth in many instances.

I haven't given you the First Citizens' Fund. Many scholarships for

natives are available through the First Citizens' Fund as well. I don't

have the precise figures right now, but it's about $1.8 million for

that particular fund, which is allocated annually.

We also have miscellaneous grants as well from the lotteries in the

amount of $1,158,000 that go to a variety of organizations in British

Columbia. It would be involved with youth, such as the Air Cadet League

of Canada, the Army Cadet League of B.C., Big Brothers, an affiliate of

Big Sisters of B.C., Boys' and Girls' Clubs of Canada, Boy Scouts of

Canada, B.C. Lions Society for Crippled Children, Timmy's Christmas

Telethon, and a whole variety of other

[ Page 6586 ]

organizations who get some of their operating

funding from my ministry in the amount of $1,158,000. There could be

other small bits and pieces as well in the ministry which we haven't

quite identified right now.

[3:45]

MR. BARNES: This is a very productive exchange between the

minister and I, because he seems to be in a nice-toned voice, providing

information, so hopefully we can continue to make progress. The

minister will recall that a few years ago the Lottery Fund was

restricted to arts, culture and recreation, and it has, over the past

six, eight or ten years or so, been expanded. As well, there was at one

time a cultural facilities fund dealing primarily with capital costs on

a cost-shared basis — one-third by the province, one-third by the

municipality and the society that was applying. This type of

arrangement was in place.

I understand that the policies under this government are quite

contrasted to those of the previous government, when we were in power.

However, many persons who are purchasing lottery tickets, who are

encouraged by virtue of the ads that they see on television, that they

are going to be able to participate in helping youth, helping culture,

helping the arts, helping sports, etc, etc., by buying these

tickets.... They are willing to engage in the promotion and the

purchase of these tickets, feeling, in part, that although they may

lose, they win. It's sort of like you really can't lose if you take the

view that the funds are going to be used in these very important

community projects.

There was a time when the government appropriated more funds out of

consolidated revenue, and this has changed. I don't have the figures,

unfortunately, but I know they exist. There was a time when the Lottery

Fund was not entirely relied upon. It has become now, perhaps, the sole

source of funding for these activities.

I'm wondering if the minister could clarify for the committee what

percentage of the Lottery Fund — through the cultural services branch,

I believe — is made available for the capital cost of constructing new

cultural facilities. I understand you do have a freeze. At least, in

talking to the director of the lotteries branch I gathered there is a

freeze on for such capital funding, and has been for about the past

three years. At one time there were some funds available. What is the

status of that fund today with respect to providing the capital cost of

cultural facilities?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the recreational facilities

fund, prior to the restraint program and the serious downturn in

government revenue, was funded directly through general revenue. Since

the downturn in revenue to government we've had to put a moratorium on

that particular fund. In other words, there has been no funding coming

from general revenue to look after the needs of recreational

facilities, nor the capital costs of cultural facilities in the

province. Essentially what has happened is this. As the fund builds up,

from time to time we remove the moratorium until the commitment is such

that down the road we can see there's going to be a serious drain on

the fund.

At the moment we have a tremendous number of applications for not

only recreational facilities but also cultural capital projects, which

are being held in abeyance until such time as the government determines

whether the moratorium is going to be taken off in order to address

this demand. I think the funds are there. It's just a question of the

government making a determination to remove the moratorium. That hasn't

been done yet, but I'm optimistic that it won't be too long before it

is.

MR. BARNES: This is quite helpful. I'm getting inquiries from

a number of organizations that are hopeful of getting some assistance

from the province. And I'm hoping that the province does indeed place

high on its list of priorities the need to fund those ventures in the

cultural community. There is one organization I'm thinking of, in

the city of Vancouver, that has built a complex that will distribute

film and do production as well. I won't name the organization, but it

is this kind of organization that is capable of generating a fair

amount of economic activity in the community, as well as encouraging

local artisans, technicians and people in the cultural community to

exploit their field of expertise to the benefit of the community. It

certainly would fall in line with the government's stated intention of

stimulating economic activity, small business, encouraging

entrepreneurial activity. Many of these people, as the minister

realizes, are self-employed and usually don't qualify for unemployment

insurance. Quite often they'll do everything they can to avoid

receiving social assistance, etc. They are just committed to their art,

to their craft.

I would hope that in making a decision or a judgment with respect to

the value of capital funding for such organizations the minister will

use the greatest latitude in his determinations and recognize the

economic multiplier effect that is the benefit from those dollars in

those areas, which I think have unfortunately been overlooked quite

often by the great economic academics of the community in their view of

what is good economic investment and what is good business and what

yields the greatest profit for tax dollars spent. I think that this

cultural thing, this artistic community, has proven time and time again

to be a very, very good investment of taxpayer dollars, and to be the

type of activity that is just good business. Some estimates are that a

dollar spent in the arts-cultural community is anywhere from two to

five times its investment, depending on what area you're looking at.

Certainly tourist dollars are attracted to the arts community, and big

business is attracted to the cultural amenities available in the

community. For instance, you were speaking of rural areas, places up

north or wherever. Even where we have the hole in the ground there are

probably some pretty sophisticated amenities available. There's

probably a theatre in the area, and a movie-house; a variety of

activities that will allow people to maintain some mental stability

during the hours when they're not working for their families, children

and so forth.

These are not often recognized and fairly compensated for in terms

of the benefits and advantages that legislators often will give other

ventures, say explorations of various natural resources, or someone who

is prepared to put capital into the creation of a new manufacturing

plant, etc. I would just ask, in the spirit of cooperation, that the

minister recognize that it is very good business indeed to invest funds

in the arts, especially in the capital construction facilities such as

the one I just mentioned with regard to filming, film distribution,

production, etc.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I certainly recognize the kind of economic

contribution that culture makes to the community in British Columbia.

That's one of the reasons why, I guess,

[ Page 6587 ]

our funding has been increased to the various

groups and societies in this province. I know that we haven't freed the

capital yet for these cultural activities for capital projects, but as

I said a little earlier, I'm fairly optimistic about that.

I might say that I've gained a greater appreciation of the

contributions that culture makes to the community and to the economy of

the province since I've become Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Government Services.

Two or three months ago I hosted a conference in the city of

Vancouver, a conference on culture at which all the provinces and

territories and the federal government were represented. We had a very

worthwhile meeting, a good discussion; it was the first time since I've

been minister that we've been able to get the federal government to sit

down and discuss matters of mutual interest as far as culture is

concerned. I was very enthused about the meeting. I might say that the

people in my ministry's cultural branch have put together a small slide

show that really does spell out the economic benefits generated by

cultural activities in a community, and that after showing this small

slide show to other provinces and the federal government, the federal

government was so interested that they bought slides from us, not only

for themselves but for all the provinces, because the provinces had a

real interest in trying to tell that story as it relates to their

particular province as well. So they purchased it. The federal

government wants to be able to translate our slide show into the two

national languages.

Yes, we have an appreciation of the economic spinoff, which I really

identified this morning in my opening speech when I talked about the

Festival of the Arts going to Prince George; the kind of people who

will flow into Prince George, the kind of economic stimulus it will be

for that community just in front of their summer tourist season. It

will put 1,500 additional people into Prince George for several days,

which will be very beneficial to that particular community. I know full

well the kind of spinoff benefits there are from cultural activities in

the province.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Why not? Why confrontation all the time? We can

get just as much accomplished, especially with guys like you. The other

way it doesn't work: I know that. I don't want you to start yelling

about jobs and getting into what we used to in the old days. There are

some policies that I feel are perhaps more akin to your side of the

House than mine, but I think there is a point where we could come

together.

For instance, you were talking about the kinds of benefits that the

various provinces could see in the creation of slides in order to

present a certain image that they felt would be educational or useful

to the public. Expo has appropriated half a million dollars for a

similar project in the public school system, to — on the face of it —

try to educate students with respect to the benefits of the world fair

that we'll be having here next year. There are some criticisms with

respect to the fact that it's one of those large megaprojects; the

timing of it, the irregularity of it, sort of stands out as a rather

unique expenditure in light of the cutbacks that have taken place in

the public school system, particularly some of the more basic special

needs programs that the Minister of Education has stridently insisted

had to be carried out.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Having said that, I'll get back to the tone and tenor of our

exchange, which I thought was conducive to some progress. I wanted to

ask the minister if, in acknowledging the extent of his education and

learning about the economic and spinoff benefits of the arts, he has

considered the benefit of expending more funds to allow artists into

the public school system. This touring concept, as I'm sure you're very

aware.... You must be getting applications for funding all the time for

artists to tour; that is, cultural troupes and companies of artists to

engage young people, especially in some of the remote and outlying

areas, where about the only big events are those brought about by the

touring arts organizations that come in and become, so to speak,

residents in the school system. They'll share a creative artistic

experience, unfortunately a rather rare opportunity for students in our

somewhat tightly budgeted public school system.

[4:00]

That specifically, Mr. Minister, is the one question: the policy of

the government with respect to funding touring companies and the

artists who might live in residence. That has in the past been

practised in the province of British Columbia, but usually it's fraught

with a great deal of difficulty because of lack of funding. The

benefits, as the minister acknowledged in one aspect of our discussion,

are immense. Certainly with the stresses of the times and the quickly

changing academic community, we need to develop that side of the

learning mind that is more creative and allows for more imagination and

inventiveness, and a sense of freedom, even if it's in the imaginary.

It stimulates these young people and encourages them to feel they can

do some things independently, despite the rigidity of what is happening

in the public school system due to restraint and government policy

respecting what the basic curriculum should be.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the touring programs, we.... For art

events, grants are available to assist both non-profit community

organizations in sponsoring professional performing arts events and

school districts in sponsoring arts enrichment programs. In 1984 we

approved an amount of $223,045. In the present estimates we are

discussing now — 1985-86 — we have $234,000. So we have made an ongoing

commitment to touring facilities for cultural groups in British

Columbia.

We have also allocated $200,000 from lotteries for Expo-related

touring in B.C. — in other words, for cultural groups that come to the

province during 1986 — which is a new allocation over and above what

we've been doing in the past. So there is an additional sum of money

for various cultural groups that come to Expo from other countries or

other provinces, which will assist them in doing any touring they wish

to do in British Columbia. That's the allocation during the current

fiscal year. It is more than likely there will be additional moneys in

the next fiscal year to look after the Expo year. This money is the

organizational money that's being put in place. So there'll be some

additional money earmarked for touring during the next fiscal year —

not the current one.

I know that the VSO would very much like to carry out a tour of

British Columbia. They've enjoyed their previous tours in British

Columbia. I forget the specific dollar value they've attached to a tour

of British Columbia. I know that we've helped the Vancouver Symphony

Orchestra to go to Tsukuba, Japan, to Expo 85, by allocating a sum of

[ Page 6588 ]

$100,000. We're essentially supportive of cultural groups touring in the province.

MR. BARNES: You know, as I was sitting here and just

reflecting on days gone by, I was thinking of the minister's comment a

few years ago with respect to a collection of art works compiled during

the previous administration. Our Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr.

Bill Hartley, compiled some very valuable pieces of art, and I hope

that before we wind up, the minister will indicate their present

location and what has happened to that collection. Anyway, the humorous

point of the thing is that — and I am sure the minister was just joking

— he referred to that art as garbage art. Mind you, you know, we all

like to have a little fun. But I wonder if the minister ever did really

take a look at that art? I just give you that as an aside. It was a few

years ago, and we may have in our midst, in these days of restraint,

quite a valuable collection of art works, which includes such names as

Tony Onley — to mention just one — who is one of the few artists who

have been successful in getting the kinds of benefits through the

taxation system that many other artists have been unable to get.

Could the minister also indicate the manner in which he engages the

B.C. arts advisory board? We have often said on this side of the House

that that board should by rights, in order to truly reflect the needs

in the community, especially in the outlying areas, be representative

of the councils and of the needs in those areas through some kind of

electoral process. In other words, if those people were able to sit as

representatives of those regions.... In some regions in the province of

British Columbia, the contrast is so great, the needs are so different,

that when one talks about arts and culture, one is hard-pressed to

define what one is talking about. I went on a tour a year and a half

ago, and we were in the Kootenays. There was one set of needs and one

problems, availability of resources, etc. It's something else on

Vancouver Island. It's something else up near Prince Rupert, in the

Queen Charlotte Islands or up in Atlin. But all of these places have to

be viewed in terms of cultural policy in the province of British

Columbia, and all of them are diverse and very complex. Probably no one

person, no matter how well-intentioned or experienced, can really

represent those needs. So there has to be a local regional approach.

My question is one that was raised time and time again on that

recent tour that I took, with the cultural policy with my party. We're

wondering if the minister is satisfied that the present system and his

advisory board members are really able to reflect those needs. In fact,

are they able to operate with authority? In other words, have they the

ability to implement their mandate?

The limitations on being an advisory board would suggest that they

don't have the real power — in other words, the budgetary power — that

they really need in order to be able to do the kinds of research to

follow up on the support that the various regions require. Could the

minister comment on the amount of funds that the B.C. Arts Board is in

fact able to use in meeting its mandate as required by the cultural

arts community?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, the member talks about the art

collection that was collected some years ago by a former government in

British Columbia at a cost of about $900,000. Certainly there is some

of that art that is valuable and that has appreciated in value.

Unfortunately I can't think of the name of the artist which I have in

my office which comes out of the art collection. It's a beautiful

painting, and I have a Tony Onley in my office, and I'm sure that the

Shadbolt paintings as well are worthwhile.

But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the government between 1972

and 1975 was not very selective in what they bought, in what they

called art. The member chides me about my remark about garbage art in

the old days in Public Accounts back in the early seventies. I was

deadly serious when I said that that was garbage art. I wasn't really

referring to every piece of art that had been gathered by that former

government, but I'm just as much an expert as you are. Everybody has

their own different appreciation of art. But some of that art which had

been purchased by the government was pornographic. There's no doubt

about that. It was in bad taste, not only in my opinion, but in the

opinion of most people of this province. And a lot of it was a waste of

money. But certainly there were some pieces of that art that were

worthwhile. When I called it garbage art I really meant it, but really

was not meaning every piece of art that had been gathered. So all I'm

trying to say is that the government of the day was not too selective.

They attempted to pacify every artist and everybody who aspired to be

an artist in British Columbia by acquiring some of their art.

Now on the Arts Board. The Arts Board really has regional

representation, and it's representation from all across British

Columbia. We ensure that the representatives on that board are

representatives of the various regions of British Columbia. In fact, I

just received a letter; we have one vacancy on the board right now.

It's a vacancy, in my opinion, that rightfully belongs in Vancouver. We

had an application from an individual in Kamloops that wanted to fill

our vacancy. I indicated to them that the vacancy would be filled from

Vancouver, because the Kamloops region basically is already represented

on the board.

[4:15]

So yes, the Arts Board has a regional representation. They are

responsible for the allocation of the funds that are available to the

various cultural groups in British Columbia. They are advisory to the

minister. They make recommendations to the minister as to how the

funding should be allocated, organization by organization, and they do

it in cooperation with the director and the employees of the cultural

branch of my ministry. So they basically will not determine the amount

of funding, but they will advise me as to how the funds should be

allocated and to which organizations.

MR. BARNES: Just for the record, what did you say about the Arts Board? Are they appointed or elected?

HON. MR. CHABOT: They're appointed by us on recommendations from the community.

MR. BARNES: Appointed by the ministry. Well, it could work,

but there is some question that that could become a problem. It has

been a problem, but I don't think we need to do any more than recognize

the system as it is, and the changes that have to be made will be made

by those who are able to make them. I think that I'll leave it at that.

You were talking about this garbage art, and I simply have to say a

little something on that. You're quite right when you say that your

opinion about what good art is is as good as anybody else's. That's one

of the problems with it, isn't it?

[ Page 6589 ]

However, I'm going to remind you of something that the Premier said

soon after you said that, because.... In fact when he said what he

said, I was a little hesitant to take him up on it, because in order to

get into a fight, you have to bring yourself along, and that can be

dangerous.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, no, it was your Premier who said that good

art was in the eyes of the beholder. He suggested that if anyone wanted

to contest that matter, he would take all of the art, put it out in

front of the Legislature and leave it up to the public to decide. I

wonder about that. That might not be such a bad idea. We could find

that art and put it out there and maybe have a.... I want to see some

of that pornographic stuff you were talking about. You know, let's face

it, when that issue was raised and you were making those remarks, the

situation in B.C. was quite different. We've become quite enlightened

in the last year or two. Things are changing very fast. That's one of

the dangers, in fact, of things happening so fast. We can't keep up.

Those old-timers like you and I have real problems trying to determine

what's going on anymore around here. But what people are watching on

television....

AN HON. MEMBER: We're offside.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's not unusual, Mr. ex-Attorney-General

and House Leader. Being offside can sometimes be the best way to get a

vantage point on things. You know, back in the old days when I played

ball, we used to have what we called a dead-man play. Do you know what

a dead-man play is?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, what is it?

MR. BARNES: That's when you run from scrimmage and get

downfield and you fall down and stay down. You get into the crowd where

no one can see you. Everybody huddles up, and then you sneak out of the

crowd and run down to the end zone and get a pass. They finally

outlawed that, though. That was in the good old days.

We have to invent things as we go along to survive in this business, you know. But I think we are slowly making progress.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we've now reached a point where I'd like

to challenge the minister. I'm sure he's ready for a challenge, because

his remarks have indicated that he has become enlightened, despite his

remarks about garbage art over the past. He has come to see more

things, and this is the beauty of allowing yourself to be open to

change and receptive to suggestions. You allow some time to make a

decision and to reflect on things, so progress is being made very, very

slowly, but nonetheless it's being made.

The minister indicated that something like $900,000 was expended from the.... What was that fund? The cultural services fund?

AN HON. MEMBER: Back of the truck.

MR. BARNES: Back of the truck — the art. All right, $900,000

on the garbage art. I don't know how he got those assessments or came

up with that value. This is an important subject we're talking about,

because if you were to take those pieces of art and count them and

assess them on the amount of energy that was expended in terms of the

individuals who created them, whether it was pornography or whatever,

and took a look at where that person came from, we could find out the

immense amount of energy that goes into every single utterance by those

people. And what we've been saying on this side of the House all the

time is that that's important. That group of people who do those kinds

of things are very important, and they should be sharing on an equal

basis and getting equal opportunity, equal access to what the good life

is supposed to be about, and recognized and given status in society.

Certainly we don't hear about artists going bankrupt the way we hear

about businesses that are being subsidized by government going

bankrupt, but you can be sure that they are bankrupt from the start.

Most of them are making a contribution, a donation, and most of them —

and I say this with caution.... Many of them could be considered ripped

off by standards of fair remuneration for the efforts that they put out

as to what they normally would get in terms of the minimum wage, for

instance, for their efforts.

I think that we're making progress. We're beginning to see that

there is a very large segment of our society who, for lack of

organization, for lack of the ability to lobby or perhaps because of

not being politicized sufficiently well to know the strength and power

they have, are just going along loving what they're doing, taking

whatever they can get. But I can assure you that the evaluation, the

appreciation of most works that are created by artists, many, many

times over, multiplied in a very short space of time.... Most purveyors

of the arts and dealers in the arts recognize this full well.

But how many artists do we see riding around in Mercedes-Benzes or

living in fancy hotels or wearing fancy clothes? Most of them are

spending day and night, all of their time, trying to do their art, and

we're calling them hippies and losers and welfare bums and just about

everything else. But those people are committed to something that we

need, and most of us benefit by it and would be in very bad shape if we

had to rely on those people who are upwardly mobile, motivated toward

upward mobility, to grab onto all those things in life and abandon

those values. We should want them to continue doing what they are

doing. We should compensate them fairly and recognize what they are

doing. In other words, we should get off their backs and have them join

in the good life.

I think what I'm going to do, Mr. Chairman, is allow the minister,

if he wishes, to respond. I have some matters on another subject that I

will save for a later point in the debate. But I want to thank the

minister for his attention. I think that we have been making some

progress and getting some understanding about the government's position

with respect to the state of the arts in the province.

MR. STUPICH: I don't know why, but I think I want to get into

this garbage art business just a little. My opinion is worth just as

much as the minister's on this subject, and I share his opinion with

respect to some of that so-called art. But I think the idea was a good

one. The proposal, from the beginning, was that 1 percent of the cost

of any building being built by the government would go towards

encouraging B.C. artists by buying their art and showing it for public

display. Perhaps where the process fell down was that we relied on the

artists themselves to establish a committee that would make the

decision as to what art should be bought. While in some instances they

made what I thought were good

[ Page 6590 ]

choices, in some instances I share the minister's opinion with respect to some of the choices they made.

I was interested in the discussion between the first member for

Vancouver Centre and the minister about the use of lottery funds. That

discussion was all about using it for culture and arts. I want to urge

that the minister look at it a little more broadly than that. In the

past it would seem to me that it's all gone into massive projects in

Vancouver — B.C. Place, Expo and things like that. Not all of it has,

but it's heavily oriented that way. I know that the minister said

something recently that prompted the chairman of the recreation

commission in Nanaimo to submit a series of applications to the

ministry for assistance from the Lottery Fund for six projects

totalling in costs some $332,000, with the grants at something less

than half of that — a total of $155,500. They are still waiting for

some response. I did check with the minister's office and was told that

the decision had not yet been made as to whether or not funding for

these kinds of projects would go ahead.

While the minister is considering extending the use of lottery funds

for cultural projects and the arts, I hope he wouldn't neglect projects

such as this which are oriented towards recreation as opposed to

culture and art. They are all good projects: the development of an

existing swimming pool so that it will be usable for a longer period of

time, the improvement of playgrounds and things like that. In every

instance the recreational director would like to have some evidence of

government support so that he can go to the council and persuade them

that this is worth going ahead with because we're going to get some

help from the government. If he doesn't get help from the government,

then it's going to hard for him to sell that to the council. So I would

hope that the minister would look favourably not just for requests like

that for Nanaimo but from all over the province.

There's another request from Nanaimo. The mayor wrote to the

minister about the Bastion. I don't think I need to say very much about

that. It's well known all over the province. The heritage branch of the

ministry did do an initial survey and recognized that significant

damage.... I was going to say "done," but it's not done; it's just that

it's aging. It is in a damaged condition. The mayor has requested that

the heritage branch do a further study to determine the costs of

improving it. I don't know whether that letter has been answered; it's

dated April 29. I'd appreciate the minister's looking into that. We are

into the tourist season. I'd like to know what's happening on that.

On the lottery funds themselves, I'm really intrigued by the

estimate for the Lottery Fund. I note that we're going into this year,

April 1, 1985, with a balance of $43,022,938; that's in the book of

estimates. To eight significant figures you know how much money was in

there. I don't know when this book was printed, but you knew that would

be the figure on March 31. I think that's pretty good. You also expect

to raise $78 million from lotteries; that is, the take for the fund

will be $78 million, out of which you're going to spend $69,340,000.

You're going to gain $8,660,000 in the fund, and you're going to end up

on March 31, 1986, with $51,682,938, to eight significant figures

again. If the minister is that good, then he must be able to tell us

exactly what projects are going to be funded during the next 12 months.

I'd appreciate getting some information from him, to eight significant

figures, as to just what's going to be spent on the various projects

that will be helped by the Lottery Fund. It would seem to me that the

minister's plans must be very well formulated to be able to do that.

There are some stories — and there are some quotations from the

minister — about the system of selling lottery tickets and the concern

that some organizations have had. There is a newspaper story here:

"Lottery Aid Drying Up; Non-profit Groups Seek Meeting with Chabot."

Mr. Lodge, secretary of the United Commercial Travelers in Victoria,

said that the service club recently went to the lottery commission to

discuss declining revenues, and was told there that eventually there

would be no revenue from this source.

There's another newspaper story, dated February 9, with a picture of

the minister, saying: "'We are looking at the plight of the non-profit

societies and the impact the changes have had over the last three

years,' he said in an interview." I wonder if the minister is still

looking into that; whether he is contemplating any changes; whether he

does expect that this is going to be phased out completely, or whether

some method will be taken to continue.... "I would like to see them

work for it." The minister said they're doing nothing for it. Well,

they did a lot for it at one time; and through their service, through

their attention at the local level to the way they worked to build up

their own revenues, they actually helped the ministry, because the

ministry was getting a cut on all of this, of course. I think it's a

shame that they were left out of it. I don't know whether the minister

has any plans, whether he's looking at this at all at this time.

[4:30]

[Mr. Kempf in the chair]

I'm wondering if the minister can tell us — I think he can, from the

exact figures in estimates — how the sales of Pacific Express are

standing up, compared to what the Lottery Fund was getting from the

sales of Western Express previously. I have one newspaper story here

from the Times-Colonist , May 8, 1985, saying that the Western

Express sales, even though B.C. is out of it now, are actually higher

than they were before B.C. was in it. I find that hard to believe, but

it's in the newspaper, so it must be true. I wonder what's happening to

the Pacific Express sales and how their sales are standing up, compared

to the situation before.

A different question. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), I

think, raised the question of the government newspaper that went out

commenting on the budget. This story refers to the minister's saying

that there were 1.2 million copies of that newspaper. The minister said

it cost pennies a copy. A government spokesman said that the newspaper

cost $100,000 to write, print and mail. Mr. Chairman, that works out to

8 1/3 cents per copy, including all costs of writing, printing and

mailing. I wonder whether the minister wants to associate himself with

that cost per copy — whether it can be done for that price.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Cost per copy?

MR. STUPICH: It was 8 1/3 cents, 1.2 million copies; a total

cost of $100,000 to write, print and mail. Mr. Chairman, if another

zero was added it might be more believable. I wonder if the minister

would like to comment on that.

There's one other thing I want to talk about. There was discussion

earlier this afternoon about the redistribution commission report, and

the fact that it has yet to see the light of day. Mr. Chairman, I think

the minister has been around long enough to remember a previous royal

commission report

[ Page 6591 ]

that was a long time seeing the light of day: the

Carrothers commission report. Perhaps not. It was a report commissioned

before your time by the coalition government and delivered to the then

Provincial Secretary, the Hon. W.N. Chant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fred Carrothers?

MR. STUPICH: I'm not talking about the redistribution; I'm

going back into history a little now. He wasn't on the redistribution,

but he did a report on bargaining rights for government employees that

was delivered to the then Provincial Secretary, Hon. W.N. Chant. That

report saw the light of day when the then Provincial Secretary, Hon.

Ernest Hall, found it in the garage of the previous Provincial

Secretary, Hon. W.N. Chant. The redistribution report was commissioned

by the NDP administration and delivered to the government by the then

deputy Provincial Secretary, who was Deputy Provincial Secretary under

the W.A.C. Bennett regime and the Dave Barrett regime, and was still

Deputy Provincial Secretary under the W. Bennett regime. He was also

secretary of the redistribution commission.

My question to the minister: when did that Deputy Provincial

Secretary and secretary of the commission deliver that royal commission

report on redistribution to the Provincial Secretary? If he has trouble

finding the answer....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The judge. Norris.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: I think the minister will find that that report

has still to see the light of day, because it was delivered to the

Social Credit Provincial Secretary and it's still in the files of the

Provincial Secretary — in other words, in the files of Hon. J. Chabot,

who is keeping it from the light of day. No one other than this

government has kept it from the light of day.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Only in British Columbia, you say? Pity!

Vis-à-vis Western Express, our sales in British Columbia are 350,000

tickets. That was the number of tickets we printed, I should say; we

now print 600,000. I don't know precisely where the sales are now. We

ran out of tickets for the first two or three draws. The 600,000

tickets were purchased. I would guess we'd be in the $500,000 sales

level right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were selling 350,000?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right.

I've recently written a letter to the mayor of Nanaimo. You were

wondering — I think it was last week — about the Bastion issue, the

issue of non-profits. We had a meeting. That's the non-profit

organizations that previously, when the distribution of lottery tickets

in the province.... Because the Bank of Commerce was not prepared to

continue making tickets available through their various branches, the

lottery corporation had to look at a different mechanism for the

distribution of tickets in B.C., and therefore selected the Western

Canada Lottery Foundation as that mechanism. That has certainly been

cost-efficient. There's no doubt about it.

The distribution of tickets is the least costly of any province in

Canada. Recognizing the need for funds by these various non-profit and

charitable organizations who were previously a part of the distribution

system in the province and who helped to build up the lottery

corporation and its retail network in British Columbia, we established

a formula wherein they were to be paid 6 percent of sales generated

through their various retailers. They would continue to be credited for

the distribution factor.

One of the problems this has generated, I guess, is the fact that

computer games have come on the scene — that is, 6-49 and Lotto West.

That has turned the sales of conventional lottery tickets down, and has

impacted on the revenue for these non-profits. Some of those

non-profits are getting money for doing nothing and are probably

embarrassed by the riches, but many have worthwhile charitable

endeavours which they need funding for.

We met in my office with this group of former distributors four or

five weeks ago. We had a two-hour meeting, and discussed a variety of

options and the dilemma that they face. I indicated to them.... I think

I gave them a deadline that I would come up with an answer within 60

days. They wanted to know a time-frame so that they wouldn't be spun

out much longer. I'm about to give them an answer on that. We haven't

worked out all the details of it, and I hope to have an answer within

the next couple of weeks for these non-profits. I think it will resolve

many of the problems that they have today. We certainly have been

addressing it, no doubt about that.

I guess that pretty well answers the questions. I don't want to get into the redistribution thing and all that. The NDP....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, it's ancient history now. I don't mind

tabling it in the House if you want. Can somebody get a copy? No,

nobody here has a copy. I don't mind tabling it in the House.

There was great urgency on the part of the NDP in December 1975 to

go to the electorate before they could implement this Norris

redistribution. What came first? This is not the chicken or the egg.

What came first, the redistribution report being tabled and implemented

or rushing to the people before they found out the kind of deficit that

had been incurred by that government between 1972 and 1975? I want to

tell you that the NDP of the day, that poor government in British

Columbia, said at that particular time: "We'll take the expedient

solution. We'll rush to the people before they know what kind of

financial mess we're in in the province of British Columbia."

MR. STUPICH: I don't quite know how we got into the deficit

that this administration created on March 31, 1976, three and a half

months after the election, but we'll leave that for now. At least the

minister has — and it's on the record — admitted that the report never

saw the light of day because his government chose not to let it see the

light of day. It was not us; it was that government.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, as the minister is most likely aware, I

have some specific concerns in terms of an issue that we've talked

about for some time now. That issue is the proliferation of commercial

bingo halls. I might point out that this issue came to my attention

through a number of concerns

[ Page 6592 ]

in the communities of Okanagan North addressed to

my constituency office there. A number of organizations and charities

in the community expressed some very serious concerns with respect to

the revenue they were losing in the Kelowna area and the potential loss

of revenue in the Vernon area as a result of the establishment of

commercial bingo halls in those areas. Since I originally addressed it

some time back in April, this problem has expanded considerably in

scope as a result of the concerns addressed here in the House and

suggestions I made in terms of bringing this issue to an impartial

inquiry. I've received numerous letters, from not only my area but

throughout British Columbia, which basically reiterate the fears

experienced by charitable organizations in the Okanagan.

Recent amendments to the regulations brought in through the

Provincial Secretary's office sometime last fall have allowed for the

proliferation of these commercial halls. I would like to point out what

has been experienced in the Kelowna area since the establishment of

commercial halls there. I'll just grab the.... It's here somewhere. If

the minister will just hang tight for half a sec, I'll get to it.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: If you want to respond while I find the paper.... I was caught a little bit off-guard by....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm just going to step out for a minute while he's finding his papers.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions with respect

to the Lottery Fund in general. It's my information that gross sales in

the 1983-84 fiscal year were $175 million. Out of this, $59.3 million

or 34 percent was turned over to the lotteries branch under the

Provincial Secretary, $24 million was paid out to community groups and

projects, and $35.3 million is sort of unaccounted for — in the sense

of: where does it go? If it goes into the fund, where is it directed? I

wonder if you would bring that to the attention of the minister. That's

to the deputy — through you, Mr. Chairman. We've been in contact with

the Lottery Corporation in Richmond, and they indicate that the 1984-85

estimate will be something in the order of $251 million gross, which

means approximately $87.9 million could be turned over to the lotteries

branch.

[4:45]

My question to the minister is: how much will go for projects under

the regulations and so on, and how much will go into Expo? I think the

public that is buying these tickets deserves to know precisely what the

full accounting of the revenue taken in by the lotteries branch is. So

as soon as the minister returns, I would certainly appreciate you

bringing those to his attention.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I apologize for the slight delay, I just had

to locate the proper paper. In going back to reiterate what I was

saying, concerns in regard to the transfer of proceeds from community

bingos as a result of the proliferation of the commercial halls came to

light first in the Kelowna area. I might point out some of the specific

problems that have cropped up in that area as a result of, I think, two

halls — perhaps there are more open now, but two halls that were open

at that time.

The Royal Canadian Legion in the Kelowna area last year donated over

$15,000 to charity. Since the halls opened in the Kelowna area, they

had been in a position of revenue loss of about $4,000 in the 12 weeks

prior to mid-April. The Indian Friendship Centre was making in the

neighbourhood of $30,000 to $40,000 a year, again from bingos. I might

point out that this money was vetted through the community through a

number of different community projects that the centre put on. They've

had to cancel their bingo and go into renting a commercial hall. One of

the problems that is experienced is because of the rental of the hall —

the high cost of hall rental. They have found that their revenues —

their take, if you like — have been reduced substantially.

Another example — again, these organizations brought their concerns

to my office — is the Elks club, again in Kelowna, which raised

$125,000 last year for the hearing and speech-impaired and which, since

the commercial halls opened in that area, has been losing money on its

bingos and are in a position of possibly having to cancel them.

So we've got a situation where we've got a squeeze on the bingo

dollar — I guess that's the best way to describe it. It's not that

perhaps there isn't a place for these commercial halls; there very well

may be. But I think we have to look at or reassess the present

regulations, to ensure that if these halls are allowed to proliferate

they don't squeeze the traditional charities in the fight for that

bingo dollar.

Two halls have now opened in the Vernon area, and as a result of

that the local charities and service groups in that area in the North

Okanagan are beginning to experience the results of the competition. I

might point out that the Elks club last year gave over $11,000 to

charity in Vernon, the Royal Canadian Legion about $90,000, and the

Eagles, again in the Vernon area, about $45,000 to $50,000 a year in

charity. As well, the Schubert Centre, which is a senior citizens'

complex in the Vernon area that relies on the proceeds from the bingos

that it runs, is possibly in danger of not being able to make their

mortgage payments as a result of a loss of revenue from competition

from these halls.

Now the case has been made that these commercial halls in fact

expand the opportunities for profits to be made through the running of

the bingo games. There's no doubt about it that in many cases that has

happened. But the critical issue here is that these proceeds are

distributed to far fewer charitable and community organizations than

has been historically the case. I might point out that through these

various clubs in the Vernon area, they distributed proceeds from their

bingos to over 110 different community groups. There are over 110

different groups that directly benefited from the proceeds of the

bingos.

Just let me digress for a moment to show this by way of example.

This is the Royal Canadian Legion in Vernon. Last year, as I mentioned,

they donated over $88,000. Listen to the organizations they donated

that money to: the United Way; the school for the mentally handicapped;

the Santa Toy Club; the Salvation Army; the North Okanagan Neurological

Association; the transition house; Upper Room Mission; Venture Training

Centre, which is a workshop centre for the mentally handicapped; the

Canadian National Institute for the Blind; the old age pensioners; the

B.C. branch of the Kidney Foundation; Vernon Jubilee Hospital; B.C.

Lions Society for Crippled Children; Vernon Community Arts Council; St.

John Ambulance; the Gateby Intermediate Care Residence, which is an

extended-care home for the elderly;

[ Page 6593 ]

the North Okanagan Recycling Society; the Canadian

Paraplegic Association; and Timmy's Christmas Telethon. That's over 25

different organizations that this one group, through their proceeds,

have distributed the money to through the community.

With the commercial halls you can run two games a day. At seven days

a week, that's 14 games a week. That means that a total of 14

organizations have access to that bingo dollar. So we come down from a

total of 110 organizations to a handful of organizations. Yes, they're

making a lot more money from the proceeds of bingo. Some of them are in

a very healthy situation as a result of the commercial halls.

The critical issue here is the transfer of funds from the community

at large to a rather select group of individuals — 14 in total for each

hall — that can be accommodated through these commercial halls. What is

really happening here is that there is more money being made, but it's

going into fewer and fewer hands as a result of that.

That has been the situation in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has called

for a public inquiry of their bingos. It's been the situation in

Manitoba, which has basically gone a long way toward tightening their

regulations vis-à-vis the commercial bingo halls. The situation in

Calgary is very much the same.

The manager of the local Legion hall in Vernon was also the manager

of a hall in the Calgary area. I'm quoting here from an

article of May

25, 1985 from the Vernon Daily News .

The gentleman's name is Mr. Stan Morrison. These are the words that he

has to say, in light of his experience with commercial halls both here

and in Alberta:

"'We can't compete with the big halls. They triple

the payout that we do.' Morrison said that the bingos run by charitable