1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page 983 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act of Sunshine (Bill M 210). Mrs. Jordan.

Introduction and first reading 98-

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs

estimates.

On vote 169.

Mr. Barrett –– 983

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 983

On vote 176.

Mr. Barber –– 984

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 984

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary

and Government Services estimates.

On vote 177.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 984

Mrs. Dailly –– 985

Mr. Passarell –– 987

Mr. Smith –– 987

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 987

Mr. Barnes –– 988

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 991

Mr. Hanson –– 992

Mr. Hall –– 993

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 994

Mr. Cocke –– 995

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 996

Ms. Sanford –– 997

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 997

Mr. King –– 997

Appendix –– 998

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT OF SUNSHINE

On a motion by Mrs. Jordan, Bill M 210,

An Act of Sunshine,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 169: minister's office, $141,787 — continued.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry I didn't have the opportunity to ask

the minister. I read in the paper that the minister made statements

about ICBC. I would appreciate it if you, as a cabinet minister, would

clarify those statements. Were you in on the decisions that led to your

statement, or did you just make up the statement? I'd like to know

whether or not it was a cabinet decision, or was it just yours out of

the weekend hat?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Estimates do not afford the

opportunity to discuss the responsibilities of other ministries — only

those ministries under which the minister in question is responsible

through his administrative responsibility.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, did the minister make the

statement that's attributed to him in the press? It's his estimates.

First of all, I want to know if you made that statement, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he didn't answer in question period. I

checked the Hansard Blues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have the sixteenth and the eighteenth; a

ruling from either would be most appropriate. The administrative action

of the department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation

and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of

Supply. Nor can be the actions of those high in public servants whose

conduct can be criticized only on a substantive motion. We are

discussing the administrative action of the department, which is open

to debate.

MR. BARRETT: I've had some inquiries from municipalities that

own automobiles as to the auto vehicle insurance rates next year

related to the minister's statements. Could the minister clarify for me

whether or not, with the new ICBC rates, they can keep within the 5

percent budgetary restriction that you've brought in on the

municipalities? Now that's a very important question related to

municipal budgets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It may be very important, hon. member, but the

Chair cannot allow that type of argument. The debate on ICBC was

covered under the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not talking about ICBC any more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Who was the minister

responsible? If you would care to couch your questions in a manner that

would affect the....

MR. BARRETT: Yes. I'I put them on the couch. Mr. Chairman, I

asked the minister how the impact of the 5 percent ceiling on municipal

budgets, recommended by his ministry, would affect the municipalities

relative to the changes of automobile insurance within the framework of

their budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as I outlined earlier,

part of the duties of our ministry is to provide guidance and

information to the various municipalities throughout the province.

Certainly over the last three years we've developed a very excellent

record in that regard. From this we have seen, as I mentioned earlier —

in fact an unprecedented move — where 74 out of 140 municipalities have

been able to bring about a tax reduction. I'm certain it is an example

for the whole of Canada. I'm sure that we will find that the

municipalities will also benefit from the tremendous moves that are

being made throughout agencies of government, and in ICBC as well. As

efficiencies are being brought into that particular system of insurance

— and as we've seen them over the last several years — the benefits

will accrue to all of the citizens of British Columbia, including the

municipalities. I'm certain they'll have no difficulty maintaining

themselves within a 5 percent limit, although I'm not sure such a

requirement will be asked of them. But I'm sure that if they try they

can do it.

MR. BARRETT: Just one last question, Mr. Minister. Will that

policy include the loss of the safe-driver discount to the

municipalities?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The municipalities have to budget the money. I

want to know the answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe that comes under the

administrative responsibiJity of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer

that. We've seen that if there are accidents, then they'll pay higher

rates. But we've had a number of moves through this ministry, and

through other ministries, to try and introduce safe driving within

municipalities. And these are also showing considerable benefits, and

the driving records of people in municipalities have improved

considerably over the last number of years.

[ Page 984 ]

Vote 169 approved.

Vote 170: general administration, $2,450,143 — approved.

Vote 171: grants, contributions and subsidies, $56,250,000 —

approved.

Vote 172: Revenue Sharing Fund, $141,700,000 — approved.

Vote 173: central ministry services, $364,100 — approved.

Vote 174: transit services, $37,027,000 — approved.

Vote 175: building occupancy charges, $234,000 — approved.

On vote 176: computer and consulting charges, $28,500.

MR. BARBER: Vote 176 applies to computer and consulting

charges and allocates $28,500 for that service this year. Last year

$136,000 was allocated for the same service. Judging by the enormous

savings, I presume that the ministry has abandoned the B.C. Systems

Corporation. If it hasn't, could the minister tell us how it is he has

managed to reduce his budget by $109,000? It's quite extraordinary. If

he's done that, perhaps it would be to some benefit to the other

ministers, who have increased their budget this year for consulting

services. In any case, it's a major cut. We wish the minister and the

ministry well now that they've abandoned the Systems Corporation. I

wonder if he might tell us which systems they're using now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Last year there was a considerable sum

included for pulling together information and developing a system of

keeping statistical information for municipalities. We've now gone to a

Micom system to process this type of information — data and statistical

information for municipalities. We certainly don't require that large a

sum this year.

MR. BARBER: Are you still using the services of the B.C.

Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, we are, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: I'm sorry to hear that, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 176 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 177: minister's office, $182,096.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I look forward to making a few

observations at this point in the presentation of my estimates, and

then I will hopefully be able to answer the questions which are posed

by members.

As a direct result of this government's ongoing review of programs,

the responsibility of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and

Government Services was enlarged in early December of last year. In

addition to the traditional services provided to government by this

ministry, and they include a variety of things — management of the

public service, printing, microfilming, postal services, support for

this Legislature and executive council — we were assigned several

directly related responsibilities in December, including the British

Columbia Buildings Corporation and the Government Employee Relations

Bureau.

We were also assigned several new programs to complement our public

services which, for many years, have included the Provincial Museum,

the archives, a number of other public facilities and the tour guides

here in the legislative buildings. The new programs consist of

responsibility for construction and maintenance in these buildings and

of Government House, the cultural services program, Heritage, libraries

and the recreation and fitness branch.

By way of introducing these estimates for the ministry, it should be

observed that the Travel Industry portfolio was transferred out of the

ministry at the same time that the new programs just outlined were

transferred in. The overall effect on the ministry's budget is to raise

it from $151.3 million in 1978-79 to $178.8 million in 1979-80. I would

like to remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, that this increase results

from receiving programs from the former Ministry of Recreation and

Conservation, and from other ministries, rather than from any

significant change in any one program.

Also, Mr. Chairman, a major organizational change was started very

early this year. To regularize reporting and accountability, the

ministry now has, I am pleased to say, three main divisions under three

assistant deputy ministers. The culture, heritage and recreation

division reports through Alan Turner, who is known to many members of

this House and to many people in British Columbia; the government

services division is responsible through Barry Kelsey; and the finance

and administration division is headed by Jerry Woytak. These men, with

Gerald Cross, the Deputy Provincial Secretary and deputy minister of

government services, in my view — and I think in view of the ministry —

constitute a significantly strengthened senior management team for this

fairly major ministry.

A beginning has been made in restructuring the estimates to

correspond with this new organization; but, admittedly, Mr. Chairman,

that is going to take some time. Some of these changes were started

before the estimates were prepared and printed, and are reflected in

the material which is before the committee. The remaining changes will

be evident in the estimates which come before the House for the 1980-81

fiscal year.

In opening the discussion of the estimates for the Ministry of

Provincial Secretary and Government Services, I would point out that a

number of significant developments have taken place recently in the

ministry, or are planned for the fiscal year which is now under review.

I am pleased to report, first of all, Mr. Chairman, that we have

developed funding guidelines for all major funding programs now

operating in this ministry. These include lotteries, the Cultural Fund,

the First Citizens Fund and the Recreational Facilities Assistance

Program. These guidelines are avail-

[ Page 985 ]

able, and I hope they will be of benefit to members

of the House and to constituents throughout British Columbia.

Recently the Provincial Capital Commission was transferred to this

ministry, but I should point out that was a very recent move. In terms

of legislation, we have discussed work that will start relatively

shortly on the Victoria Conference Centre, to be located on waterfront

property owned by the Crown provincial on Wharf Street. The basic

outline for this building is nearing completion; construction could

start in the 1979-80 winter period. The Victoria Conference Centre will

be built under the guidance of the Provincial Capital Commission. In

anticipation of the opening of that centre in 1981, I have directed the

ministry to look to the feasibility of hosting a major cultural event

attracting performers from many Pacific Rim nations. We see the

convention centre as an important activity — a focal point, if you will

— for our Pacific Rim neighbours, and we believe that it has a great

future for Victoria and British Columbia, and that a major cultural

gathering would go a long way to introduce the centre to the Pacific

Rim and to our own citizens.

I want to conclude the opening remarks by mentioning one or two

anticipated events which figure largely in this ministry. Some weeks

ago we formally applied to the International Bureau of Expositions for

the right to host an accredited international exposition, with the

theme of transportation, to mark Vancouver's centenary in 1986. It

would be known as "Transpo '86." Our initial application was very well

received by many of the 37 nations which rule on such major

international expositions. That proposal is now under review and we

will learn later this year, possibly as late as December, whether the

IBE will accept it in principle, and that probably would be concurrent

with a full inquiry, as is the practice of the IBE. With the world

looking at many difficult energy problems now, I think we must begin

addressing ourselves to the important transportation questions which

impact on all people, British Columbians no less than others. By this

time next year — or perhaps a shade earlier, Mr. Chairman — I hope to

be able to report to you that British Columbia's contribution to the

world, as we approach the year 2000, will indeed be an international

exposition, at which all of the major nations of the world interested

in and involved with transportation may exhibit their solutions to the

transportation problems which lie ahead.

Another important event which is, I think, of interest to many

members is the opening this fall of the new, major public gallery at

our Provincial Museum. I digress from the prepared remarks, Mr.

Chairman, to observe that a representative of the Edinburgh Festival

was in our museum last Friday and declared — and I think we can all

take pride in this — that it is truly, in his view — and he has seen

many of them — one of the world's great museums. I know that members on

both sides of this House share the pride of all British Columbians that

our museum was recently called the best of its kind in the world by

other internationally known and respected experts on museums. That is

not to the credit of this government; it is not to the credit of the

former government; it is to the credit of succeeding governments and

those individuals who have worked in and for the museum. The gallery

will open in November or December — it is a little difficult to be

precise about the time — and it will depict the natural history of

British Columbia, including a visit, which I think will be fascinating,

beneath the surface of the sea. The prehistory of the province will be

brought to life.

Mr. Chairman, I think you have now, in the Ministry of Provincial

Secretary and Government Services, a fine combination of a variety of

activities and responsibilities which hitherto were spread over two,

three or four ministries. We — the deputy, the assistant ministers and

I — are working to make it an even more efficient, effective and

accountable ministry, and I look forward to discussing any questions

which members have in that respect.

MRS. DAILLY: I wish to thank the minister for his opening

remarks. He certainly does have a ministry which is very varied and, I

am sure, very interesting to administer. As a critic of the ministry,

it's somewhat difficult, because it's so multifaceted, to get a handle

on this kind of ministry. But I'm sure by the time we are all back here

next year, or whenever the Premier decides to call us back into

session, we'll have a better picture of the many areas this minister is

now responsible for. So the main areas I'm going to discuss with the

minister tonight and ask him questions about are areas which have been

under the jurisdiction of this ministry in the past. They are areas

which have caused us the most concern during the last several years.

The first area I want to go over — I realize estimates should be a

question time and not just a speech time, Mr. Minister — is lotteries.

As the minister knows, I on behalf of our party have expressed

considerable concern about the way and the manner in which the lottery

fund has been handled by the Social Credit government. Under the former

Provincial Secretary it came to light that there was no question at all

that the lottery funds of this province were being handed out in a

highly political manner.

I have in front of me an editorial from the Victoria Times , which at the time

when there was an exposure worked out some interesting statistics. It

pointed out that if you followed the proportional representation by

seats of the Social Credit Party and the NDP at the time of the last

election, before this election, in the former House, you would have

found out that if it had been handed out fairly, 68 percent of the

lottery grant should have gone to Social Credit ridings, and the rest

to the opposition ridings. As we're all aware, at that time the

breakdown was 35 Social Credit MLAs, and we had the 18 MLAs for the

NDP. But the interesting thing we found out was that if you broke down

the grant, as handed out by the former Provincial Secretary, a full 94

percent of the grant — and I'm referring to the miscellaneous section,

which was open for complete political discretion — went to Socred

ridings.

The new minister has taken this over, and therefore we have been

ready to give him time to see how he is going to handle the issuance of

the lottery fund money. In all fairness, I will say that he has made an

attempt to make sure that there is a proper publication of those

grants. For the first time we find those in front of us. That is

something positive. But I have to remind the House that this was done

at the urging of the NDP. But it was done and acceded to by the

minister, so now we have a chance to analyse what is happening today.

Generally speaking, I would say that on the whole the minister is

attempting to apportion these out on a less political manner. Now I

have to say "less political manner" because since the minister took

over there have been a couple of things that have happened that do

concern me. I have a specific question now, and it's back to a recent

[ Page 986 ]

grant that was made by the ministry to the

Saltspring Island Golf Club. There are many grants I could question,

but I'm not going to go through them all this evening in this House. So

I'm picking out a couple. I hope that in bringing these to the

minister's attention he can explain to us the basis on which he grants

these lottery funds. The Saltspring Island Golf Club — I'm not

positive, but I believe it could be a golf club which people use by

membership only; I can be corrected on that — was recently given

$75,000 from the lottery fund for an irrigation system for this golf

course. At the same time, the people on Saltspring Island, the

recreation commission and others, have really questioned this grant.

They say: "Look, we need a swimming pool, where all of our citizens can

benefit." Basically what they are asking is the same kind of question

I'm asking the minister: How was this decision made? Who made it? Can

he give us the rationale for giving this grant out of lottery funds to

this particular golf club?

At the same time, I have an

article in front of me, and a report —

and I think that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) would

find this interesting. The Lady Minto Gulf Islands Hospital is under

considerable pressure to try to provide proper patient care because of

the cutback by the Minister of Health. In no way am I suggesting that

lottery funds, as do the Irish Sweepstake funds, should go for

hospitals, because the whole premise of lottery funds is that they

should not go for something that has to be ongoing. The people cannot

help but be somewhat cynical when they see government moneys taken from

them — but they themselves have decided to buy those tickets — and

channelled through the government to such things as an irrigation

system, when we have so many other areas that need help.

Another thing that concerns me about the minister's administration

of the lottery funds is that I find that even in his own area, in

Saanich, money was handed out for a breakwater study. Somehow or other,

Mr. Chairman, that's stretching the use of lottery funds, in my opinion.

I am open, and I'm sure the other members of the House are open, to

hear the rationale from the minister for just two of these funds. I

think if we can get an answer, maybe we can get an idea of how he has

decided to allocate these funds. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, our concern is

that the way it is handled now is too political. The lottery funds must

be taken out of the political realm.

We could end up with a minister who is very, very non-partisan about

handing out the moneys, but that is not the point. The point is they

should not be left in the hands of a minister to administer. As some

people say, the lottery funds really, in essence, are a form of

taxation, if you want to carry it to that extreme.

In the province of Quebec, which we know had a lot of problems with

lottery moneys, they have a policy where they say lottery funds should

go into general revenue. Frankly that would frighten me, Mr. Chairman,

with this government because I am concerned about their priorities. If

it went into general revenue perhaps one minister alone would not have

the complete political discretion to hand out the moneys in a very

highly partisan way, as the former minister in charge of this lottery

fund obviously did.

I found many people in this province who buy lottery tickets are

very concerned that the lottery tickets should not be used by one

political party to further their own political aims and objectives. It

became very obvious before the last election that this is what was

happening.

We have a new minister, and I think we're all ready with open minds

to hear how he intends to see that politics will be taken out of the

granting of lottery funds. I'd be very interested in hearing his

reaction and what his plans are. I understand he says a booklet will

come out. We're still waiting for it. I think he has the

responsibility, if he and his government insist on maintaining it in a

highly political way under a minister. He therefore has a

responsibility to let all the citizens of B.C., and certainly the

members of this Legislature, know what criteria you are going to use

for granting funds. No one knows, outside of the ones that go for

medical research, which is obviously done by a committee. We don't know

how the miscellaneous funds are handed out. I think this government and

the minister owe it to the people of this province who buy lottery

tickets to lay it out very clearly and specifically exactly how you

make these decisions. I also think you should inform the citizens of

B.C. what your priorities are when it comes to granting lottery grants.

Are your priorities in favour of irrigation systems for private golf

clubs versus a swimming pool grant which could benefit the majority of

citizens?

I think you should stand up, Mr. Minister, and give us an idea. I

don't think anyone in this province is really satisfied, and I found

out this crosses party lines. It doesn't matter what political party

you belong to, because even a Social Crediter may say: "Well, if it

stays too long in the hands of politicians what's going to happen

eventually?"

So I suggest this be well looked into by the minister. I hope he

will answer us very specifically.

I would like to go on to another point — another question, Mr.

Minister — on another area which we feel has some very high political

overtones in your department. That is the whole area of the Queen's

Printer. It shouldn't have highly political overtones, and I can't

place the blame entirely on you, Mr. Minister, except that you are the

one responsible for this vote. We're all aware there's never before

been a government that has so abused this vote as the Social Credit

government of this province. We have the evidence. It's been given to

us prior to the last election. We're all aware of it. When the B.C. Government News was put out,

and rushed out just to hit the deadline before the election, it was

blatant political misuse of the Queen's Printer and the taxpayers'

money.

I listened to the member for Vancouver East, who had to wait a long

time to get an answer from the minister. We can understand why, because

I'm sure the minister was embarrassed himself. I'm sure he had to check

with the Premier to find out what kind of answer to give. The minister

did give an answer. He referred to the fact that there were, I think,

four extra people hired to put out this special edition. He talked

about them going to Vancouver, and talked about a certain amount of

overtime. But the big question, the major question to this minister, is

why this paper was allowed to go out as a straight piece of political

propaganda under the stamp of the Queen's Printer. Why should the

people of British Columbia, who are made up of all political parties,

have to pay overtime and have to pay for extra staff, Mr. Chairman, to

put out a piece of political campaign literature?

That, Mr. Chairman, is not the only example. I pointed out a few

weeks ago the misuse of taxpayers' money by the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer), who very

[ Page 987 ]

blatantly put a magazine into the schools of

British Columbia the day before the election. I want to ask how the

minister vindicates this. He is the minister in charge of this vote,

and I think you owe an explanation to us. I think you also have to be

able to assure us that this vote will not continue to be abused by this

government.

I'm very concerned at this moment to hear answers to those two

questions regarding the lotteries and what you intend to do about them,

and regarding the Queen's Printer — what your future moves are going to

be in the handling of that. There are other questions later.

MR. PASSARELL: I have two questions to direct to the minister

that have to do with the Indian Advisory Act. What kind of

self-determination and self-development can be provided to the native

people of this province with grants of only $19,300 in total, a

reduction from last year, when the description of the Act says: "To

provide status and non-status Indian communities and groups with

assistance in the process of self-determination and self-development

and administration. The First Citizens' Fund...to provide financial

assistance for native community projects."? That's the first one.

The second one is under the Indian Advisory Act,

section 7(d):

"Duties of the Director." It states: "To study, investigate and inquire

into such questions relating to the civil rights of Indians and other

matters affecting Inians as may be designated by the minister." The

question, through you, Mr. Chairperson, is: what type of matters

affecting Indians have been referred to the director, and what type of

recommendations have been proposed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before recognizing the next speaker, might

I inform the member for Atlin that regardless of the sex of the person

occupying the position at the centre table, he or she is still referred

to as the Chairman of the Committee of Supply.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat at a loss to

understand why the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) would be

concerned about the grant to the little golf course on Saltspring

Island, particularly when the party that she represents, when they were

in power in 1974, gaily and merrily gave a grant to purchase a golf

course on Galiano Island out of lands under the control of the

Environment and Land Use Committee. There are 3,000 people living on

Saltspring Island, considerably more than there were at that time on

Galiano. The little golf club on Saltspring Island is open to the

public at large, not only to play golf, but also to eat and use the

facilities. It's open to children and people of all ages.

I didn't really rise, though, to make a political speech. I rose to

ask your leave to welcome a visitor here this evening.

Leave granted.

MR. SMITH: It's appropriate to welcome her, because part of

the minister's responsibilities are cultural and heritage. I would like

to welcome Mrs. Terry Reksten, who is a constituent of mine, and who is

also the author of a best-selling book on Rattenbury, former reeve of

Oak Bay, a great figure in the architecture of early Victoria. I'd like

to ask the House to welcome Terry Reksten.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I note that others may wish to

speak, but again referring to that formidable member in the back row

over there, I'd like to get a few things off my mind before he

completely terrifies me.

It would assist the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) to know,

through you, Mr. Chairman, that the $19,300 to which he refers is the

vote, code 80. It does not relate to the moneys available under the

First Citizens Fund, which are some $1.6 million. So that's an

administrative vote in order to administer the fund. That may help him.

I'm going to turn to lotteries next, Mr. Chairman, because I think

in assessing the activities which we've undertaken thus far in just

something approaching eight months, we have strengthened and

regularized the process by which lottery grants are received, assessed,

analysed and made. First of all, we do so recognizing that lottery

funds belong to all citizens of British Columbia, in all

constituencies, and in all regions. Very fundamental to my approach to

disbursement of lottery money is that fact. Therefore I am not in any

way concerned as to whether the project which is proposed, the grant

which is requested, is represented by a government member or a member

of the official opposition. I think that I can't overstate that.

We have introduced a lottery application form, albeit a relatively

simple, straightforward form with questions asked on both sides of a

large piece of paper, which will give us an opportunity to assess the

grant requests without considering the degree of time and care taken in

the preparation of the brief. So we're not marking a brief; rather,

we're assessing a project.

I have already referred to the fact that we have additional senior

staff in the ministry. We have a grants coordinator position. The

review of the lottery requests as they come in is very much a part of

the duties of one of the assistant deputy ministers on the floor

tonight — not that the decision-making is assigned to that assistant

deputy minister, but rather the analysis of each grant is very

carefully reviewed at the administrative level prior to a decision

being made.

Yes, this government introduced this year a report which could be

called, if you will, "Where the Money Goes — Where Lottery Grants Go."

I undertook to publish it quarterly. We had one within about three or

four weeks after my appointment to this portfolio. I think the date was

January 5, 1979. We had the second report to bring us up to date,

dated, I believe, April 3. We're perhaps just a shade late with the

next one, but we will have yet another report in the first few days of

August, because again, as we experiment with this tremendous growth in

lottery revenues, we recognize the responsibility we have not only to

this House but to the people of British Columbia to clearly and

regularly report where the funds are distributed, and for what purpose.

We have full disclosure — absolutely complete full disclosure of

lottery grants — and that will continue on approximately a quarterly

basis.

Madam Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I suppose that whether the

grants were made by two or three ministers, decided upon by two or

three ministers, by all members of the treasury benches, by all members

of the government caucus, or by all members of this House, there would

be those occasional grants — one, or two, or a half dozen — with which

some people disagreed. That's the very nature of priorities in

estimates, priorities in govern-

[ Page 988 ]

merit spending, and I think the very same must

apply in the disbursement of lottery grants.

You've identified one which is in my constituency, and that is a

grant of $75,000 to what sounds very grand — the Saltspring Island Golf

and Country Club. Well, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, it's a

private club, if you will, but it's a club which is one of the most

important recreational facilities for the 3,000, 3,500 or 4,000

residents of Saltspring Island. It has a heavy green fee use, and I say

this not as a golfer.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Is that approving my vote? I'm not sure.

Nevertheless, the criticism which came with respect to that

particular grant said, first of all: "You're taking desperately needed

water out of St. Mary's Lake." Not that you said it tonight, Madam

Member, but that's incorrect. They are into a catchment area; they're

going to use water which is collected on the golf course, and then use

it over the club property in the drier months of the year. So it sounds

like a very grand, private, exclusive club. It isn't. It's an important

recreational facility for individuals, many of whom are a little older

than some of us in this House, and I see that as an ideal way of

disbursing money in line with the guidelines under which lotteries are

operating.

We continue to develop, to polish, to refine the lottery guidelines

that are already in place. Fault me if you will for individual grants

with which you or some other member will disagree. But I suggest that

we are first of all analysing the requests most carefully, most

thoroughly. We are making many grants conditional on further

information being received and, most importantly, we are strengthening

the audit process. We're going to conduct — indeed some have already, I

think, been conducted — a follow-up after the fact to ensure that a

grant for X thousand dollars to a project in Castlegar or Dawson Creek

or Prince Rupert in fact was put in place as proposed. I think that is

something you and the people of British Columbia would expect of me,

and even if it were not mentioned in this debate or any other debate, I

would not feel comfortable if we did not have that kind of audit

process.

The breakwater study, a grant of $5,000 — seed money, if you will,

to the community concerned.... It's interesting that the two you've

identified are in my constituency. I am tempted, Mr. Chairman, to read

back the list, which includes some in Burnaby, but perhaps the

committee would like the list to be read, which I can do a little

later. There's seed money to a North Saanich and Sidney organization to

determine if, in fact, there is merit in construction of a breakwater.

But if we're discussing lotteries, if we're discussing this rather

sudden wealth we find in British Columbia and in other provinces in

Canada, then I don't think the debate would be fair or objective if we

did not mention that $2 million will have been assigned by the end of

this year for health research in British Columbia; that we have funded

ethnic groups such as the Kootenay Doukhobor Society with $120,000 to

assist in the restoration of an historic Doukhobor village; and that

$20,000 has gone to the University of Victoria as the province's share

in the production of a Rossini opera which will be recorded, videotaped

later and, I trust, broadcast on some PBS stations in the United States

and on the CBC. We should not overlook the fact that, since I became

minister, we recognized a proposal from the Canadian Union of Public

Employees regarding their Vial of Life Program. That, as most members

of the committee would know, is the vial which is placed in the

refrigerator with a decal on the refrigerator door in order that the

paramedic team or an emergency crew arriving will immediately determine

— particularly in the case of children and older people — what

medication or what continuing ailment affects the individual who has

collapsed or who is in need of assistance.

We haven't talked about the drinking-driving Counterattack or the

$10,000 awarded for scholarships in student competition. We haven't yet

mentioned the $1.2 million grant, through Vancouver General Hospital,

for a major new ophthalmological centre at Vancouver General, matching

a grant raised by an organization known as the Friends of

Ophthalmology; a grant to the Cancer Control Agency of British Columbia

to purchase new diagnostic equipment; $110,00 given to the Canadian

National Institute for the Blind; just under $12,000 given to Multiple

Sclerosis; $200,000 given to the Western Institute for the Deaf to

purchase and supply special aids to individuals; $250,000 granted to

the British Columbia Lions Society for Crippled Children to relocate a

children's camp at Camp Shawnigan.

If we're going to trade examples back and forth, Mr. Chairman, fair

enough. I will accept the criticism on individual grants. But I'm

building in accountability. I'm building in a review by administrative

staff without regard as to whether the request has come from a

government or an opposition constituency. We are building in the audit

process, which I consider to be absolutely vital.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, to the Provincial Secretary, I'd

like to comment just a bit on the end of your response to the member

for Burnaby regarding the lotteries fund. You have outlined a number of

very important programs being financed through the proceeds from

lottery sales. As you will recall some two years ago, the lotteries

fund initially was for culture, recreation and heritage. At that time

it was somewhat restricted, and those particular categories received

long overdue financial help. I would point out, for those present and

who are not aware, what happened when your government was elected. It

amended the Lotteries Act, and we now have a sort of open-chequebook

approach to our lotteries fund.

I don't have that particular

schedule before me, but I know it was

amended to coincide with the Western Lotteries Foundation Program,

which just about allows lotteries funds to be granted for almost any

occasion. The programs it's going to are valid and worthwhile.

Certainly no one wants to argue on that point. But I would suggest to

you there is a trend underway of what should come from consolidated

revenue for public support, and which should come from the sale of

lottery tickets.

We're talking about health care and programs for various

experimental projects in the community which, in the past, have been

paid for out of public tax dollars. Now we are getting an indirect tax

through the lottery sales. It seems to be on the increase and we have

somewhat of a bonanza here. There is a tremendous amount of money

coming in through the gambling and the dreams of people who want to

become wealthy overnight. But their chances, through comparison studies

of other lotteries, have been shown to be considerably less than they

think they are. It

[ Page 989 ]

may be a good deal for those fortunate few who are

receiving the assistance, but on the other hand, it is a costly

program, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the government will recognize its

obligations in terms of its regular programs, and assume that through

the tax revenue, rather than having any designs that they will continue

to expand this particular approach. At the very best, it has its tragic

side as well. There are many unfortunate situations as a result of

people who are banking their lives on making a fast buck through the

good fortune of winning lotteries. I don't have that file with me but

it is quite considerable. There have been many sad cases. People have

had to go to jail for falsifying documents and selling off their homes

and mortgaging their souls, more or less. So it has its tragic side.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have a question that I sort of came upon accidentally in my

interest in following the sports programs that are developing in the

province. The minister has inherited the new assignment of the

Provincial Secretary, and along with it came many unresolved questions,

one of which I am intending to raise this evening. I would start,

however, by saying that the question I want to raise has a more

philosophical factor in it than perhaps anything else. A year and a

half ago, when I first came upon the question of how to handle sports,

maintain a low profile and amateurism and not to confuse it with the

commercial high-profile types of events, it became quite clear to me

that I had a view which contrasted with that of the government. So I

will say, with respect, that I know almost before I start that we

probably will agree to disagree on approaches to amateur sports in

British Columbia and the philosophical way in which these sports are

best made accessible to people in the community.

Last summer I was in Penticton and had my first opportunity to visit

the games. We once had the Festival of Sports in this province which

was clearly a political trip, but the result of those games is really a

remarkable occasion, and one for which the government should be

commended. They are certainly something that we can all be proud of in

British Columbia. The Summer and Winter Games have been almost as

successful, if not more so, than the lotteries program, because many

thousands of people are involved. Families with youngsters, senior

citizens, people with handicaps, all kinds of interests, men, women and

children — just whatever anyone can imagine — are involved in the games

throughout the province. I can be nothing but impressed, and I am

certainly not standing here to comment in any way that would downgrade

or express any negative

interpretation on what is happening with the

involvement of those people.

The only question I am raising is one that came to my attention not

by my own investigations but merely by comment from those people who

thought the nature of the games is that they are not a professional

event — not anything like the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games that

we all know so well — but really the games of youngsters, 12, 13, or 14

years of age, who are inexperienced, many of whom have never had any

competition at any time previously. They are just a local grassroots

type of activity. But the people who were covering those games — that

is, attempted to cover those games — were members of the cable

companies in the province, members of the Canadian Cablevision

Association, better known as programmers. These are the groups that,

under CRTC regulations, have been given the authority to operate

community channels. The programs are localized, non-commercial,

non-profit, and are aimed at helping the public to get an insight on

local events and activities, including things like school board

meetings, debate sessions which are going on in people's homes, and

that kind of thing — just a local interest, free of charge. Most of the

people who are putting on these programs are volunteers, and most of

them are inexperienced and certainly non-professional. However, this

particular group of people were quite shocked to find that when they

showed up on the sites in Penticton and Kamloops for the Winter Games,

they were denied an opportunity to televise and record the events that

were happening in their respective areas. As you know, there are in

excess of 40 installations throughout the province, and these groups

are not designated for reproduction on a commercial basis — they simply

reproduce their programs to reflect local interests. When they were

rejected, they were obviously quite upset. Many of them had travelled

for many hundreds of miles to these two sites, and that was a bit of a

trauma. That's really the matter I would like you to clarify.

I received some comments that, I say with respect, are second-hand.

I can't make a judgment on these comments, but the comments included

rather uncomplimentary remarks about the present managing director of

the games, Mr. Ron Butlin, who I understand is with you this evening.

I'm sure you can explain whether or not there is any credibility to

these charges. But people were of the opinion that decisions were being

made rather arbitrarily in respect to the coverage of the games, and in

respect to the rights of all broadcasters, telecasters and so forth to

cover the games of their own free will, more or less — the same as if

you were to call a press conference. I think it would be rather

irregular for you to say: "Well, I want the Vancouver Sun but not the Province , and I want BCTV but not

CKVU." You say: "I'm having a press conference; come and cover it. If

you think the story is worth reporting, then you do it." I thought and

I think the programmers thought that this was a grass-roots,

non-commercial, low-profile, more or less going-nowhere type of event —

other than involving the public.

But there is something about this thing that I would like you to

clarify for me. At what point was the decision made that only one

network would be permitted to report the events that were to take place

during both the Summer and Winter Games of 1978? If you could indicate

what the reasoning was.... Perhaps there was a very good reason for it,

but I fail to see it. I have had a lot of comments, some of them

suggesting that there was some kind of a deal going on, and I would

like to have the record straight on what kind of a deal there was.

There was some suggestion that there had been a contract, and I

understand that there was no contract, that it was an agreement. Some

have said it was verbal; others have said it's written; nonetheless, it

seems to be binding. It seems to have some kind of force behind it,

because people who have showed up on these sites were told to leave.

We have coming up in August the Summer Games in Richmond. The same

situation is going to occur, unless it's clarified as to whether or not

it's an open event, whether or not CBC, CKVU, BCTV, Channel 10 or

whatever are allowed to go and cover those games — live or otherwise —

without any restrictions whatsoever. I would like the minister to

clarify these points, which I think have a put a

[ Page 990 ]

damper on the enthusiasm generated by the

promotions of the ministry when these games were first introduced.

Perhaps, before the minister was assigned this responsibility, the

ministry was overexuberant or overenthusiastic or just thought that it

would be a good thing to get a lot of publicity in the usual way with a

lot of glossy print and ballyhoo and so forth.

When you reflect upon what happened to those people who were

attempting to cover the games, it is quite clear that they were quite

upset. I have an awful lot of material here that testifies to the fact

that there were attempts to contact the managing director of the games

— letters from various programmers and individuals attempting to get

clarification on what their rights were, and on what authority had laid

the restrictions on them. By what authority had an exclusive contract

been given to one company at the exclusion of the others? What

authority would be used to ensure that if some of the other television

companies showed up on the site, they could be ejected? Just how much

force was there, in fact, behind the restrictions?

What's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, if some of these people show

up in a couple of weeks in Richmond? For instance, if some of these

cable companies were to show up, what would you do? Would you put them

in jail or sue them? What would happen? If it's an exclusive contract

or an exclusive agreement, how much force does it really have in fact?

Is this a bluff? Is there some document that is binding that you could

take to court and enforce? What does it take to make a legal contract?

Does it require some kind of exchange of goods or services, some kind

of a deal?

We're telling an awful lot of people in the province that they can't

cover something, but at the same time they're asking for clarification.

They've made representation. They've attempted to get an answer, and

they've received no answer. All they've received is: "Well, you know,

there's not much we can do but maybe we can have some kind of an

agreement to let you cover it. Maybe we'll let you make a report on the

programs one week later or something like that. We'll let you do a

selective sort of telecasting of the events."

But why should there be any restrictions? I would like to have an

explanation of why there would be any restriction whatsoever on games

that have been dubbed as grassroots, games that are non-professional.

They don't even lead to any playdowns in terms of national or

international competition. They go nowhere. These are attempts to

stimulate young people, ordinary citizens, ordinary families; just

about any description in the community you want to describe will be in

those games. It's supposed to be lots of fun, lots of volunteerism. I

just can't see the sale of a contract or a deal being made to promote

something of that calibre. That's the part that's confusing, not only

to myself but to those volunteers who are aspiring to cover their

communities through the Channel 10 programs.

Perhaps the minister is not familiar with this specific designation

that I refer to from CRTC regulations respecting the coverage of these

games, but I would just tell you that there is under

section (

d) of

CRTC regulations — this is the 1975 publication that I have — the

following: "The community channel is to give the maximum opportunity

for the community to see live progamming. Such programming should

include coverage of the local council or school board meetings, local

amateur sports, community debates, public addresses, et cetera."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the nature of the community programming should be

distinctly different from the programming offered by radio and

television stations serving the licensed areas. The most significant

fact which sets the content of community programming apart is its

ability to turn the passive viewer of television into an active

participant. They go on to describe that live coverage is the key, that

at every opportunity community channels should be given the opportunity

to cover live, not to have to sit back passively and cover events after

they have passed.

I know that this is an aside in terms of the things that are going

on, because most of the people out there probably don't even realize

too much about the networks behind the scenes which are covering the

games. But this is the way you stimulate interest and enthusiasm, Mr.

Chairman. This is an opportunity to do something really important,

something really profound, something like what was done in the province

of Ontario. They also had Summer and Winter Games in 1978. At that time

they were succesful in having cooperation with most of the cable

companies. They not only did the shows live, but they did them in

colour. In fact, they demonstrated that it was possible for all

channels, both commercial and non-commercial, to live together. The

same thing happened in the province of Alberta, where the cablevisions

worked together to bring the programs. I'm sure that Mr. Butlin, the

director of the games, will attest to that fact, having in 1977 come to

this province after having been the chairman of Sport Alberta, and

coming from many other successful ventures as a sportsman himself, in

honour of sporting organizations. So I'm sure he's very aware of what

I'm suggesting, and I just can't understand the basis upon which you

made a departure in the province of British Columbia.

There are 3,000 or more youngsters who are going to be involved in

the games. Many of these youngsters will not be seen. In fact, at the

very best, a network such as BCTV can cover a few highlights of a few

outstanding events in a half-hour period that they may be telecasting

their show. But with the community channels having free access to cover

the events, it's possible that every single one of those youngsters

will have an opportunity to see himself later, get some stimulation, to

have his friends in the neighbourhood realize some fruits of their

labours and to get a chance to know they have a little star in their

community. Take, for instance, Atlin, where we have Landslide Jr.

growing up.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you want me to answer the question?

MR. BARNES: Well, you don't have to take Atlin; you can take

Shaughnessy Heights.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you want me to answer your point? You've

developed it well.

MR. BARNES: If you would like to answer the question, I'I

just give you a few more — if you want to deal in specifics. I don't

want you to cut my speech off and then stand up and make a speech. I

want you to deal in specifics.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I want to help you.

[ Page 991 ]

MR. BARNES: Well, the way to help me is to be specific. Would

you please tell us what the conditions of the agreement are? How

binding is the agreement? Is it something that we're locked into and

can't get out of? What would happen if someone were to test that

agreement? For instance, if some of these cable companies were to show

up on the site in Richmond, what would happen? Would they be sued?

Would they be run off the property? What forces would you use? They are

now under the impression that they have no rights whatsoever. Who was

consulted, in terms of the various organizations from the different

communities? Perhaps some of these youngsters may feel that you're

taking away their right to be reported on by various other networks,

such as CBC, CKVU and Channel 10. Can you give away their rights? I

think that these two questions are the crux of the matter.

Philosophically, I think that you should indicate whether or not

this is a grassroots event and whether it is really that much different

than the Festival of Sports we've known for so many years in this

province, in which the Ministry of Tourism uses the events to get a

high profile for Social Credit. They even had the green and white

colours in the old days. Everybody was ballyhooing and having a good

time, and all the cabinet ministers showed up in town, stood up on the

platform and made speeches amd took bows, and the athletes were never

introduced. It was just a big opportunity for the government to have a

high profile for itself at the expense of the taxpayers. I would like

you to indicate to me whether, in any way, that is what is happening

here. I hope you will say: "No way."

If you promise not to make a speech, Mr. Chairman, then I will sit

down. If you make a speech, I'm going to get back up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair promises not to make a speech.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This has been discussed in question period

on two or three occasions. As we agreed across the floor at the time of

the last question and answer, it is a matter that can be dealt with in

my estimates.

First of all, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, I can't give you a

legal opinion with respect to the testing of the contract. I don't

really think that you expected me to give you such an opinion. I'm not

here, in debating my estimates, to offer a legal point of view with

respect to the contract in question.

I don't want to make a speech as long as you did — through you, Mr.

Chairman — but I do want to assist if I can. In Richmond it appears we

are going to have 3,200 athletes — and not just youngsters all the way

through — and 793 officials, virtually all of them volunteers. There

are 1,700 volunteers within the community.

With respect to the British Columbia Games, we are still in the

developmental stage. In answer to your last few questions, if one

accepts the premise you advanced with respect to the Festival of

Sports, the fact of the matter is that at the Winter Games in Kamloops

this year — and I was there as the minister responsible for sport,

recreation and a variety of other activities — my profile at the games

was, I think, reasonable. It wasn't too heavy; it wasn't too light. I

think you'I find it similar in other games.

It's an ambitious program. I really hope that the member, in his

concern about cable television coverage versus British Columbia

Television — and I never thought I would be in a position of defending

television, Mr. Chairman — is being largely philosophical. I was

distressed at one point, when the member said: "What kind of a deal has

been made?" I don't think he really meant that. I attempted to say in

question period that the contract is not costing the taxpayers of

British Columbia any money at all. Because the matter was experienced

first in Penticton, then in Kamloops, and now with the Richmond Summer

Games looming just a few days away, and not, with all respect, just

because the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has spoken

of it, but because there was concern, we've had a number of meetings. I

have not participated in those meetings but I've been assured that

they've taken place. It seems that the matter is now gradually on the

way to resolution, with B.C. Television understanding very clearly what

its continuing role is as far as Richmond is concerned, and beyond. And

the cable programmers are not going to be thrown off the sites of

various games.

There are certain requirements which are in place because we have a

contractual arrangement. With respect to being in the position of

defending BCTV, that network — and this is the key to the whole thing,

Mr. Member — undertook to provide full and province-wide coverage of

the games. So we're not, as an example, excluding CBC, who are involved

in colour coverage and the summarizing of various activities which have

taken place during the day. We're not excluding independent television

stations, and we're not excluding cable television under the terms of

the contract which has been made.

Why was a contract made with a television network? Because it was

seen as the best and most effective way of getting coverage of the

games over a few days — and it's not a big thing in terms of time — to

every single part of the province. Then we let the cable television

programmers in each community focus in greater detail later, as they

wish and if they wish, on the activities of individuals participating

in certain sports which make up the games in total.

It's philosophical, Mr. Member, but you and I have spent a great

deal of time talking about this. The contract with BCTV was arranged

prior to the portfolio change in December; but that's not a cop-out.

That's just putting it in perspective. I inherited the B.C. Games

responsibility with the portfolio change, and I think the contractual

arrangement with British Columbia Television is the best possible way

to get the coverage back into the communities of British Columbia as

quickly as possible, and in a professional fashion. So, you know, I

have nowhere to go. We could discuss it again tonight and tomorrow, and

that's fine. But we agree to disagree, as you said at the outset.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Minister; it was very good of you

to respond as candidly as you have, although you didn't answer all of

my questions. In fact, you didn't say whether or not you were going to

table the agreement so that we could look at it. It is a public

document in a non-profit situation, covering a grassroots program.

Would you table the documents so that we can see for ourselves just

what the agreement is? That would, perhaps, solve a lot of the problems.

I would like to ask you another question. Could you indicate whether

the managing director sought bids, or attempted to give other

television networks an opportunity to cover the games in an exclusive

way? In other words,

[ Page 992 ]

how was it that BCTV was selected? Was there no

attempt to find out if there were others that could cover it as well?

Mr. Chairman, the statement that I made about deals was not to

suggest that there was any impropriety, but merely to ask why BCTV, or

any other television company, would want an exclusive to cover the

games at its expense if it was not going to make any money? The

minister suggested that there was no money exchanged, that there was no

deal involved, that everybody just loves everybody else and that

they're doing it fo the heck of it. Are you suggesting that BCTV is

making a contribution to the games by donating? How much is it

donating? How much money would it have cost us had it not donated all

of this free service? If that's not the case, are we making money?

To give an exclusive is a pretty significant concession. The

minister has said that there was no exclusive, then that it was an

exclusive, but with no restrictions — or something like that. He says

CBC is covering the games. I didn't know they were covering them. He

said: "Oh, yes. They're covering them in colour, and the cable

companies are covering them, and everything is happening." But at the

same time he says there is an exclusive agreement. Who's calling the

shots? How exclusive is it, and how open is it? Could the minister

indicate who these people go to when they want authority to go on the

site? Do they go to BCTV, or do they go to the managing director of the

Summer and Winter Games, or do they go to the minister? Who is running

the show?

Maybe you could indicate to me whether or not the document can be

tabled, and I'll deal with those points.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I can't table in committee,

but I would be happy to table when the House rises tonight, or first

thing tomorrow, the exchange of correspondence which constitutes the

"contract." The question was asked: was the CBC contracted? I am told

that the CBC was asked in 1978, or in preparation for the 1978 games,

if it was interested. Again, I am informed that the CBC was otherwise

engaged — with, I think, the Edmonton games — and declined. I'll table

the documents. Don't expect, however, to see a firm legal contract in

the usual sense of the word, but I will table all the documents which I

feel will be of use to the member.

MR. BARNES: I feel I should commend the minister. He's being

very cooperative. This is the first time in two years that anyone has

been able to get an affirmative response in attempting to find out what

is happening. In that regard I want to express my appreciation to you.

I don't suppose it will serve much purpose in reading into the record

the many attempts made to the present managing director to get this

same kind of commitment. But leave it that there were many, many

attempts over the past two years. Proposals were made by the

programmers, and there were very, very discouraging responses from the

Premier, and to a lesser degree from you, Mr. Provincial Secretary,

indicating not very much could be done. So I'm going to accept your

promise that this House will have an opportunity to review this

agreement between B.C. Television and B.C. Games in order to see to

what extent it is a binding agreement, and whether or not we've been

upset and more or less intimidated by a quasi agreement, rather than

one that in fact exists. I think if there's a legal document, one which

is binding, then my debate would be more relevant than if it's a

document that you suggested, perhaps more or less an agreement that is

open to

interpretation. I'm sure if it's open to

interpretation, we

will interpret it to mean there will be free access by all private

companies, community channels, and so forth, to go on site, cover the

games live and operate in any way they feel is their desire. If that's

not true, then we still have problems.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, we have a disagreement. We don't have

problems.

MR. BARNES: We have a disagreement. I think perhaps as time

goes on you will recognize this is a disservice if it is an agreement

that is not flexible enough to permit free access to the site. In this

particular situation this is no disrespect to BCTV, who have every

right to try to cover the games, or to have an exclusive contract.

That's not my qualm. My qualm is with the government that is concerned

about grassroots participation, and is concerned about encouraging

voluntarism. All these people you have just described, who go into the

thousands, are being manipulated by the managing director and being

told what is going to be the outcome of their efforts. I don't think

that's right. I think they should have an opportunity to decide whether

or not they want a high profile or a low profile. They are the ones who

are paying the shot. It's a public event. It's not a professional

event. It's not the same as a hockey league, or the B.C. Lions, or even

the Olympics. So there is a very serious miscarriage of fairness, Mr.

Chairman. I will leave my remarks with that and hope that tonight, or

tomorrow morning, when I have an opportunity to see the agreement, I'I

be in a better position to make a comment in respect of whether or not

it is something that's binding.

MR. HANSON: I would like to talk to the minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, regarding a proposal of great interest to my riding

and to lower Vancouver Island, and B.C. in general. I'll be very brief.

I'd like to give you the information that the federal government is

funding jointly, with the Nova Scotia government, a Maritime Museum of

the Atlantic, to outline the maritime heritage and history of the

Atlantic, and to raise the awareness on the Atlantic coast regarding

the 200-mile limit, and the prospects for proper management and

utilization of the marine resources of the Atlantic.

Interest has been expressed in Vancouver for such a museum. I feel

the logical place is in Victoria. There should be a Maritime Museum of

the Pacific and a Maritime Centre of the Pacific here in Victoria, to

be built somewhere in the Inner Harbour, in conjunction with the trade

and convention centre and the E&N proposals made by my colleague

here in Victoria (Mr. Barber). I think this would be a great asset

here. A number of times I have raised the importance for jobs in this

particular area, for the proper management and utilization of our

marine resources. I think that if we had something like that here — in

conjunction with the federal government complex at Sidney, which is

developing new technology, so we no longer have to look to Japan to

provide us with the technology for the management of these resources —

and it could be done here, it would be a great thing for tourism and a

great way to educate our own population about the advantages and

prospects of the management of that 200-mile limit. I would be happy to

[ Page 993 ]

lend any support or encouragement I could give. I

would be happy to write letters to people at the national museum. The

National Museum Corporation of Canada have money in it, DREE has money

in it, and the Nova Scotia government has money in it. I think it would

be a great thing and I understand that there have been a few dollars

spent by your ministry for some exploratory work. I think it should be

pushed much farther or else we are going to lose the initiative or not

get it at all.

MR. HALL: As a new member I was somewhat reluctant to get

into this estimate. I do not know this new, strengthened ministry too

well. I'll deal with the strengthened ministry in a second or two. Let

me start off with a couple of questions, if I may, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to the Provincial Secretary.

He answered the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) regarding his

questions on the Indian Advisory Act. I would like to phrase my

questions, if I may, a little differently, and ask him if he thinks it

would make a jot or a little of difference to his performance, the

lifestyle, the welfare, the future of the native Indian population of

our province, the administration of the First Citizens Fund, or

anything else, if we did or did not have an Indian Advisory Act. I

should tell him that had we remained in government into the spring of

1976 there would not have been an Indian Advisory Act following the

session of spring of 1976. I think that to have an Indian Advisory Act

on the statutes of this province is still a disgrace, and I think we

should remove it as fast as we can.

The Provincial Secretaries in the past have usually taken the

opportunity during estimates to provide the House, at the end of the

estimates, no doubt — or sometime during the estimates it may be

mentioned with a list of grants that were made during the previous year

— with a long document, one which can't be read, but one which has been

provided for a number of years. I wonder if the minister will be

providing to us the grants made from his ministry in the amount of $3.1

million last year.

The next queston is one of just simple interrogation, for my own

satisfaction, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering where in the estimates

there is any reference at all to the transportation museum that was

started in 1975. Where are the ancient, old, classic and vintage

automobiles and trucks that were so very happily donated to the

province in that year?

Dealing with the minister's estimates in general, I noted in the

minister's remarks that he talked about a "strengthened ministry."

Strengthened can be one or two things. It can be strengthened

qualitatively or it can be strengthened quantitatively. Looking at the

people hired last year and the people who anticipated staying with the

minister, and perhaps being recruited, I see there is an increase of

some 62 people. There are recruitment savings on that. I'd like the

minister to tell us what his anticipation is at this time about how

many people he has got working in his ministry. Of that increase of 62,

that quantitative strengthening, 31 of them have been transferred by

virtue of him now being responsible for the restoration of the

parliament buildings. Another 31 have been increased in the general

estimates. If, indeed, half come across from another ministry, I don't

consider that strengthening. If he means qualitative strengthening,

then that doesn't say much for those people who have left him or have

retired.

I would like him to explain what "strengthened" means, in view of

the fact that given 828 employees, last time and 890 this time, 31 have

been found along the way because of transfer of employees from other

departments. With recruitment savings of over $1.5 million, where does

his strengthened ministry come from? That statement was made in

response to a question about lotteries, which has exactly the same

number of people — 22 — working for it this year as last year. If we

look at the other criterion of the estimate — that is the total number

of dollars, in which there has been an increase — we find, however,

that there has been over $33 million in this estimate increased, in

effect, because we have statutory obligations in terms of unemployment

insurance and workers' compensation. We've got public service

superannuation retirement benefits in the amount of some $20 million,

and $11 million in terms of employee benefits — something the minister

could do nothing about. As sure as night follows day those increased

estimates will come through.

So out of the total of $27 million increase in the estimates, $33

million he couldn't do anything about anyway. In terms of the

minister's performance in dealing with this ministry and getting more

money to do the things he talks about with a strenghtened ministry at

his beck and call, we find he got less. Where have we got less? We've

got less in the central microfilm bureau, something which we've heard

in committee, something which we've heard for some time now, including

in the debate we've had on the Systems Corporation, which doesn't seem

to be getting the kind of attention it should be getting in this part

of the late seventies. Where else? Well, take, for instance, the

legislative library — less money is coming in than last year. If there

is any measure of the Provincial Secretary, surely it should be on what

he can do about things like the library, things like the services, not

only within the government but to the members. I'm not too sure we

could give the best of all passing grades on that particular estimate

alone.

Where else has the minister been making some statements in which we

can look at the words he said, look at his promises, his concerns, and

measure those statements, measure those promises, in view of his

performance upon the Treasury Board? Where else? Well, let's look at

the Provincial Elections Act. Heaven alone knows the minister was quick

on the draw on what he didn't like about the elections Act. Heaven

knows he diverted a lot of flak which would otherwise have gone to the

government — and I commend him for it — by being swift and complaining

himself first before some others got the chance. But what has he done

about that? What has he managed to tussle and extract out of a

reluctant Treasury Board that gives the next estimate we're going to

debate, Transportation, all the money it wants, and this one nothing?

The Provincial Elections Act is down a third. How are you going to get

that voters list prepared? How are you going to straighten them out in

that wonderful office down in White Rock? How are you going to

straighten them out down there where they couldn't even tell me, Mr.

Minister, whether there were 135,000 people on the voters' list or

95,000 people on the voters' list? They told the duly-appointed

candidates in that riding that they couldn't get within 40,000 people

of what the voters' list was. That's more than you've got in your

riding, I think.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

[ Page 994 ]

MR. HALL: No? Well, certainly more votes than you got.

HON. MR. CURTIS: More votes than any of us got.

MR. HALL: We've got the biggest riding in the province in

Surrey, and I don't know if registrar of voters can tell "S" from a "W"

or "S" from a "D," because he's got half the Surrey people in Delta and

most of the White Rock people in the wrong place. But the minister says

he's got a strengthened ministry, and he's going to run with one-third

less money in that particular vote. And so he goes on.

Mr. Chairman, I'll be dealing with and talking to the minister over

the next couple of years, until whenever we meet again on the hustings

from opposite sides of the House, as I re-familiarize myself with some

of the ministries. But I want to say that though on the first

appearance we give him "A" for intentions, I don't like the look of the

way it's stacking up. We seem to be falling behind in the Provincial

Secretary's ministry. Certainly when I see those kinds of figures of

employment and the recruitment savings of over $1.5 million, which mean

bodies, the minister has not been anywhere near as successful as he

should have been in the tussles for those kinds of things that we

should be into: no more money for heritage, culture, recreation, sports

and fitness programs; no more money for the central microfilm bureau;

less money for grants, special services and events; less money for the

library.

Where has he done well? Where has there been a 20 percent increase

in funding? Where has the minister got the eye and the ear of the

Treasury Board, of the Premier and the fellows who hold the purse

strings?

Interjection.

MR. HALL: No, no, you're wrong there Mr. Central Valley. Mr.

Central Valley, he's got it for public information, for government

information programs, and we know what that means. That means B.C. Government News may be coming

up every month now. That's what it means. I can't blame this minister,

but just in answer to a question on the order paper given to me the

other day — for which I thank the minister — we find out that even

while this government has been strengthening itself, realigning itself,

doing all of these things the minister said, the actual fact is that

he's increased his contracting out in the Queen's Printer alone from

$2.5 million to $5.5 million. That's an increase of $3 million of

contracting-out work while the staff at the Queen's Printer has gone

down. Now that's not strengthening departments. That's not making us

proud of the things we do. That's selling the farm. I agree there are

certain things that the Queen's Printer and that machinery over there

can't do, and I know that there is a growing monopoly or at least the

beginnings of a monopoly, I think, in certain of the continuous forms

and printing processes in this country. I know that there is very

little we can do to combat that. But to see an increase — in fact a

doubling of contracting-out work from that department, and that doesn't

include what's being spent in other departments....

This doesn't include, for instance, the work that's been sent up the

valley to Comox. This doesn't include the $150,000-odd that's gone into

that little printing plant up there. We'll be dealing with that, I

think, at a later date. While this government has been in power, that's

what has happened to the Queen's Printer.

My question about the Indian Advisory Act, the question about the

grants and the question about the classic and vintage automobiles

require answers. The rest is more in the nature of a debate, but if

there are any answers to some of those apparent marks of lack of

success in front of Treasury Board, I would be pleased to know the

answers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with the concurrence of the

member opposite, I think I'd like to deal with a couple of matters,

lest I lose them in answering later questions. The second member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson) spoke of the Maritime Museum and stated his view

very firmly that Victoria is the logical place for the museum as

opposed to Vancouver. In that respect, I concur without hesitation. Are

there any Vancouver members in the House at the moment, well, it

matters not. That's how I feel about it. We've had initial

conversations with the Maritime Museum of British Columbia based in

Victoria. There is a place set aside. The member will understand that

it's really just a designated space at the moment for the construction

of a new Maritime Museum. There have been some discussions with federal

officials about support for it, but I have not yet had an opportunity

since the provincial or federal election to meet with federal

counterparts with respect to this. I will be doing so.

Vancouver has a number of areas of interest and a number of

attractions, if one can use that term in this context. I think that

Victoria is British Columbia's historic port, the member for New

Westminster notwithstanding; it is our historic port. The oceanographic

institute at Patricia Bay on the peninsula and so many other factors

simply demand that museum stay here and be expanded here. I am prepared

to argue that point in the course of the coming months.

The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), Mr. Chairman, who you will

know, of course, was Provincial Secretary in the New Democratic Party

government between 1972 and 1975.... Bigger is not necessarily better,

through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member. I'm speaking about the

dollars of the people, and I hope that you will be in a position where

you are obliged — not forced but obliged — in the estimates debate in

1980 to say: "Well, you know, by George, it's coming along pretty

well." Our positions are adversarial, aren't they? You're going to be

critical. That's your job. My job is to manage a portfolio, a ministry,

and to ensure that the individuals who are working within that ministry

function effectively on behalf of the people who pay the bills. We've

had seven to eight months of hectic activity with some new assignments

having been given to the ministry, with parts of the ministry, frankly,

in my view, still in the 1960s, and I wasn't very happy about that.

They're still in the 1960s, and possibly even in the late 1950s.

I intend to ensure that this ministry communicates with other

ministries and encourages communication from other ministries. I don't

intend to permit any other ministry to take Provincial Secretary and

Government Services for granted, nor do I intend to permit anyone

within this ministry to take the concerns of another ministry for

granted. We're bringing it together. We're bringing it up to date.

[ Page 995 ]

The efforts thus far may not be readily apparent to the hon. second

member for Surrey, but they will be. I do not, again, wish to take too

much time in referring to the activities which have occurred thus far,

except to say that within recent weeks we've sat down and worked on a

six-month, a one-year and an 18-month plan for the ministry. What are

the tasks lying ahead of us? How do they rank in terms of priority? How

do we relate to other ministries? It's going to be a very good

ministry, Mr. Member. It has good people in it, and I intend to give it

the best it deserves — the very best I can deliver and the best it

deserves.

The transportation museum shows, Mr. Member, in the vote dealing

with Provincial Museum and resource museums. I think we have an

opportunity to upgrade that. We were discussing that not very long ago,

as a matter of fact, as to what we may be able to do with the

transportation museum, which is sort of tucked away. I think we would

all agree it's relatively difficult to find. I have some ideas with

respect to that.

In debating estimates, Mr. Chairman, the member has asked my views

on the Indian Advisory Act, and expressed the comment with respect to

what might have happened if the NDP had been re-elected in 1975. I'm

not going to answer the question tonight other than to say that

inherent in his question is a suggestion which has merit and which will

be examined, which I would examine with one other member of the

treasury benches — that is, the Minister of Labour, with responsibility

for Indian Affairs as well — and ultimately with a committee of

cabinet, or with cabinet itself.

Again, the member spoke about the apparent absence of clout in terms

of Treasury Board. Well, I'm honoured to be a member of Treasury Board

in this government, and therefore I have a little bit of a headstart.

We will be taking a number of proposals to Treasury Board and to

cabinet in the balance of this fiscal year, as again we come to

understand on a priority basis those things which we think should be

done to better serve the people of British Columbia, and the people who

work in the ministry.

I think those were the questions that were posed in that session,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one thing the minister, as I heard

the questions, seemed to omit or overlook was any discussion whatsoever

with respect to that fiasco we called an election a few months ago.

I realize this is the fault of those huge shoes he has to fill. The

hon. now Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), God help

those people, was then the minister in charge of elections, the

Provincial Secretary. We were informed months before that election that

there was an enumeration going on. I checked around New Westminster to

find out what really was happening in that enumeration. What an

enumeration! What a total foul-up! It should teach us a lesson! In

1966, that permanent list we have in British Columbia was purged. It's

been 13 years since the purging of that list. If you want to find your

daughter who got married ten years ago, you'll look on the list. There

she is — right at your house — having a new name and a new

constituency. But that doesn't seem to matter to that particular list,

despite the fact that all the procedures are followed in getting on the

list, and which should act as a purging for that particular name.

The list should be totally purged. We should start from scratch.

Anything less than that is an absolute departure from any kind of

decency in this particular area. All members are affected. But when you

happen to be opposition and you watch enumerators picking out

particular areas to enumerate, and not enumerating others — one

enumerator, not two as you have federally — you always get a little

suspicious. I can tell you right now, Mr. Chairman, that I know my

particular constituency quite well, and I might say I also know the

member for Boundary-Similkameen's (Hon. Mr. Hewitt'

s) constituency. He,

with a great deal of luck, got in the last time, and probably with a

little more luck for the constituency he won't make it again.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There you go, getting political again.

MR. COCKE: I don't know why I would get political in this

place. I don't know what a nice guy like me is doing in a place like

this.

The election machinery, the election Act, the whole thing, should be

cleaned up. What have we seen to date? We saw one Act cleaning things

up for the Socred donors, but nothing else has come forward. It's long

overdue. The minister has promised that something is going to happen in

that respect. If he's going to prove he's a great fellow, then let him

do a better job than his predecessor, who, I think, in that particular

area....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Predecessors.

MR. COCKE: Predecessors, whoever they may be.

Let him clean up the mess. Incidentally, the mess, grows,

particularly with those lists. I don't know whether there has been a

time in history when the list has been 13 years without being purged; I

don't think so, but it may have occurred. It certainly is due to be

purged now. You should start from scratch.

Maybe there is a better way. Maybe there should be an enumeration

each time, like the feds do, although that does extend the length of

the election, and I'm not all that keen on that particular thing. But

if we're going to have a permanent list, let's really take a look at

it. Incidentally, we might also take a look at that list in conjunction

with municipalities and cities.

Secondly, I believe that if this minister is going to do anything

that is really outstanding, the first thing that he should do is get

rid of those lottery funds in terms of doling them out bit by bit,

piece by piece. Those lottery funds should be placed in general revenue

and scrutinized by this House. It's far too much money to be in the

hands of a government that isn't particularly famous for its

evenhandedness — let's face that — and I'm being overly kind. I don't

believe any government, and particularly a government headed up by a

Premier of this province who saw fit to have a B.C. Government News delivered to

the people of British Columbia.... That was the first pamphlet of the

Social Credit Party going into the election, and it was paid for by the

taxpayers. If that Premier will stoop to that, then I don't want to see

him having access to the disposition of those funds without any

scrutiny from this House.

I believe that those funds should be placed in general revenue and

should be scrutinized as any other piece of

[ Page 996 ]

information in general revenue — nothing more and

nothing less. The lottery fund situation across this country has become

a joke. They are huge sums of money now, and they're in the hands of a

few people behind that great thieving oak door who decide in private

who will become the beneficiary or the benefactor of those funds. It's

time we got out of that kind of Dark Age. It's far too much money to be

left in the hands of people to turn those funds out as they see fit.

I'm not pointing my finger at this Provincial Secretary, but again

the predecessor. When we found that over 90 percent of the original

funds that were distributed were distributed to Socred ridings, it

raised a few hackles. I must confess this minister has responded a lot

better, but no government should have the control that this government

has over these funds without scrutiny. Of course, they're going to have

control, but they should not have that control without absolute

scrutiny. Those funds should be placed in general revenue and we should

have access to them in terms of discussion, in terms of debate. Nothing

more and nothing less will suffice.

I would like to bring to the minister's attention one particular

plea. This is a plea from superannuants, people who worked long, hard

years in government service, some of whom are almost as old as the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) or as old as he looks tonight.

He was concerned about his estimates coming up and he sits there

patiently. Never fear, they won't be coming up tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the minister's attention the

fact that superannuants do not receive any of the fringe benefits that

are available to public servants, MLAs, et cetera. I think that it's

time we, like B.C. Telephone, Mac-Blo and some other large

organizations, begin to deal with our superannuants as they deal with

their employees.

The minister can say: "Well, why didn't that happen when that

government had that short tenure from 1972 to 1975?" Let me tell you,

what we did during that period was to put those superannuants back into

business in terms of their income. You can only do so much, and I

believe that during that period there was a light at the end of the

tunnel for those people. Right now, Mr. Chairman, they need some of the

fringe benefits that we have; dental care is a good example. I think

that that's one area that would be of great benefit to those people.

The B.C. Government Employees Union, I understand, is prepared to

assist, and from what I understand as well, they are willing to absorb

part of the costs. Now I'm not sure how they're willing to do that, but

they are interested, others are interested and I think we as

legislators should be particularly interested in how people who served

this province for anywhere from 20 to 40 years are faring. We are often

only too happy to look at our own propects; but when it comes to the

prospects of others, we tend to be just a little bit overcautious and

overcareful. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is time some of the letters

that the Provincial Secretaries and others of us have been receiving

should be answered positively. Let's give a very hard look at providing

some of these important benefits to those people who have served the

province well. If the minister is going to carry out his promise that

he is really going to get out there and hustle in that portfolio, good

luck to him if he does; and I'm sure he'll try.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That doesn't mean I'm a hustler.

MR. COCKE: That doesn't mean that he is a hustler. I know who

the hustler is over there, and he sits right across from me — he has

hustled everybody in this province. I am not going to confer that one

on you; I'I leave that right with the Premier.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, those are three questions: lotteries and

general revenue; election reform — a complete wiping out and starting

all over again of that process — and some assistance to past government

employees.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: In response to the comments from the member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — and I'm sorry that, in responding to

the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) I did not comment on elections;

that was an oversight in going through a list — yes, the election

machinery in British Columbia is archaic; it has been archaic for some

years. We have the Eckardt report, which has been tabled, and which has

been debated. That is one possible start. I don't think we can discuss

the need for legislation in estimates. We've already started very early

draft work; but it is the intention of the government to introduce an

elections Act when we meet in the next session of this particular

parliament. I trust that it will be the complete overhaul which all

members know is now overdue and, indeed, has been overdue for a number

of years.

The member for New Westminster spoke about the possibility of a

combined list between local and provincial government, and I've

espoused that idea from time to time in the past. That would have to be

looked at very carefully; but I do respond as positively as any

minister can to any member, in terms of Elections Act reform and the

updating of the system, which is painfully elderly. This should have

been done, perhaps, during your term. That's not a cop-out; it's just a

fact. It should have been done then; perhaps it should have been done

prior to that. It should certainly be done now, and that is the main

point.

MR. KING: Thirty years of Social Credit, three years of NDP.

Come on!

AN HON. MEMBER: You did nothing.

MR. KING: Did nothing?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, call this unruly group to

order. I'm attempting to answer questions as fairly and as properly as

I can. The fact is it hasn't been done. The fact is it has to be done,

and it will be done.

The superannuants, Mr. Member. Yes, I've had meetings with

representatives of the retired provincial employees in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I'm shy — not necessarily retiring.

They've been good meetings. We got started. We have announced the

government's intention to make extended health benefits available — I'd

think the member would know that. But we have some further distance to

go in that

[ Page 997 ]

regard. I assure the committee that those

discussions have opened. In spite of a very busy seven or eight months,

those discussions have opened with senior staff and, with my

participation, to ensure that our own retired employees who've served

the province of British Columbia well are not going to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I fell into that trap in 1977. It's not

going to happen again. Don't fall behind. I assure the member that's

another matter which has been discussed in our medium-term program for

this ministry.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to address a question to the

Provincial Secretary. It relates to a constituent of mine, and concerns

a young long-jumper, who has just turned 19. His name is Craig Taylor,

and he is now the Canadian junior long-jump champion; this happened

just ten days ago. He is now eligible to travel with the Canadian team

to France and England this summer. Unfortunately, in situations like

this, each athlete has to put up $250 in order to travel with the team.

This money is usually put up by the athletic club to which the athlete

belongs. But this young long-jumper is rather unique in that he belongs

to no club. He has no coach. He coaches himself. He does not have $250

to make the payment in order to go. I am wondering if I can appeal to

the minister, under the lotteries fund, for assistance for that

particular athlete to travel to Britain and France this summer. He has

been trying to raise money on his own. He's been washing windows, but

he can't wash $250 worth of windows in order to get there.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We haven't heard about him, have we?

MS. SANFORD: No. That's why I'm raising it tonight. It's a

special appeal. He has just been made the champion, which enables him

to travel this summer. I don't imagine he has even thought of applying

to the lotteries fund for assistance. That's why I'm wondering if he

would have a chance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This has not been brought to the ministry's

attention, as the member of Comox has indicated. We have guidelines in

place. These are available for any member. This one deals with

out-of-province travel. There's a

preamble, but the member will be

relieved to know that rules are relaxed for individuals — that is the

rules which precede this statement — so that up to 35 or 40 percent of

travel expenses may be awarded. I would think, if you would be kind

enough to provide me with the athlete's name.... We're not making new

rules as we go tonight, but I think it is within the guidelines which

have been established. I would be happy to receive that and move as

promptly as possible.

MR. KING: There are two matters I want to raise with the

minister. One relates to a question that I asked previously in question

period, relating to war veterans' benefits and the specific

order-in-council that enabled war veterans employed by the provincial

government in the public service to attend once a year medical

examinations relating to their disability without loss of any salary or

benefits.

The minister did provide me with an answer, which essentially stated

that because collective bargaining had moved to the provincial

government employees since the introduction of that particular

procedure, they were covered at another level.

I want to make an appeal to the minister, collective bargaining

procedures notwithstanding, that war veterans who were incapacitated in

some way in defence of their country were in a separate category at the

end of the war, and by all moral standards should remain in a separate

category 30 years after that war. Their condition is not changed, and

the fact that collective bargaining has provided one standard of

benefits should not, and in my view must not, relieve the government of

the commitment that was made by order-in-council to provide them with

full coverage and full wages when they attend once a year for their

medical examination to determine whether or not their disabilities

related to injuries occasioned by military service during the war have

been exacerbated and justify a higher pension or have improved and

indicate a reduction.

The point is that they were treated as a separate category. A

special provision and special protection were afforded to them in

recognition of their service to this nation. I think it's petty and

mean, quite frankly, for the government to say that now that they have

collective bargaining, we can remove the special designation. Surely

that is seizing on a rather petty occasion to deprive them of a benefit

that may benefit them in certain circumstances, and in others may

provide no additional benefit whatsoever. You know, it's not a constant

thing. On the one hand, under certain circumstances, they may be

provided with adequate and equal benefits through the collective

agreement. On the other hand, there may be particular circumstances

where the collective agreement provides a lower standard of benefits.

My point is that they should enjoy that dual protection in the special

designation that was afforded to them through that particular

order-in-council, which has since been rescinded.

I very sincerely appeal to the minister, on behalf of a number of

war veterans who have contacted me regarding this issue, and on behalf

of a number of Royal Canadian Legions in the province of British

Columbia who have expressed similar concern, to be a bit magnanimous,

to be a bit humanistic, and not play Scrooge with respect to the kind

of pennies that can be saved for the provincial government at the

expense of people who were injured, and to some degree incapacitated.

in the military defence of our country — and the world at that time. It

was quite a different circumstance between 1939 and 1945 than anything

we've witnessed since. I think there's a very special obligation on the

Legislature with respect to people involved in that particular conflict.

The second matter I want to raise — and I can't impress on the

minister too strongly my concern in that particular area — is going to

take me some time, Mr. Chairman. I know the Chairman was anxious to

recognize me all evening, and now that he has done so I'm singularly

reluctant to relinquish the floor. I expect that under the

circumstances I'm going to have the opportunity briefly tonight and to

the full extent tomorrow to make this very difficult and complicated

point to the minister. Knowing that minister to be a most patient man,

dedicated to the duties and the administrative responsibilities which

he holds, I know that he will be just as exacting in his response to

me. So I anticipate that we shall be here dealing with this

[ Page 998 ]

very complicated question of the elections Act for

some time. Therefore I'm going to be very careful in my dissertation,

and very exacting tonight.

I'm not advocating legislative change, Mr. Chairman. What I am

advocating is the proper and judicious application of the existing laws

governing provincial elections in this province. I want to draw to the

minister's attention a number of specific incidents which defied any

judicious application of those laws in the election just passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How did you get elected, Bill?

MR. KING: Well, I don't know. I guess I'm just lucky. You

know, once in a while you win at this business.

Be that as it may, I do think that everyone is entitled to an equal

opportunity, to voting rights. I do think that everyone, whether or not

they are incapacitated in some way, should have an equal opportunity to

voting rights. I do think that everyone, whether or not they're

incapacitated in some way, should have an understandable mechanism for

voting in provincial elections.

The particular case that I want to draw to the minister's attention

took place in the city of Armstrong, where....

Mr. Chairman, I can't proceed, because I hear raucous voices

interfering with my concentration and with my presentation. But being

patient as I am, I'm willing to wait until it subsides and then

continue doggedly with my dissertation, because one thing I do have is

time, Mr. Chairman. I have adequate and ample time to make this point.

The particular case I want to draw to the minister's attention was a

floating ballot box that was authorized in the city of Armstrong. It

was a floating ballot box which provided a vote, as I understand it, to

the hospital in that community and to the senior citizens' complex.

After voting it was returned to the Social Credit campaign committee

rooms for dispatch, Mr. Chairman....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you nominate the Conservative candidate

in your riding?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I didn't nominate the Conservative

candidate in my riding, nor did I throw the large rock through his

committee room window. I suspect that was some disgruntled Socred. I

don't know whether there was a note attached signed "James Roland

Chabot"....

Mr. Chairman, on the railroad they used to throw off messages to

that member at Lake Windermere. All the railroaders used to go by and

throw off notes saying "Vote for Chabot and watch the Kootenays rot."

But I would never do that, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think I'm being heckled, and I'm

singularly unaccustomed to that kind of thing occurring. I really am.

Mr. Chairman, to get back to the floating ballot box, what we have

is a number of floating ministers over there, and I think the

backbenchers are keeping an eye on them because they're going to be

floating a little more delicately in the very near future. Keep your

aspirations up in the back bench because I think some of them might

float right out of a job. I think there's hope for the long-timers like

the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). I heard of her dimensions.

I read where her dimensions were graphically outlined in the press

today. I think she has a great deal to commend her, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the member would like to relate this to

the administrative responsibilities of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. KING: I certainly would like to relate it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're just jealous.

MR. KING: Not at all, I greatly admire the member's

intellectual dimensions.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's most difficult to make a serious

presentation in the House tonight. Therefore I would move that the

committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

again.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled answers to questions on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

APPENDIX

9 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of

Transportation, Communications and Highways the following questions:

1. Do the Directors of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation

receive any form of remuneration and/or expenses or per diem rates?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (

a) in what form and in what amount and (

b) in the case of each director what is their name and the total amount

paid them in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

[ Page 999 ]

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. ( a ) 'Each director of

the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, except those who are public

servants employed by the Province of British Columbia or employees of

Crown agencies, are paid the sum of $200 for each day devoted to the

business of British Columbia Ferry Corporation, together with travel

expenses at the rates which are established from time to time by the

Public Service Commission of British Columbia.'

( b )

Fees

Expenses

Fees

Expenses

Clark, J. A.

$3,000.00

62.02

$2,600.00

---

Duncan, W. A.

---

988.35

---

683.23

Ferguson, J. B.

2,300.00

1,025.40

8,900.00

2,282.01

Hick, W. B. M.

1,800.00

1,997.03

2,200.00

1,717.88

Michaud, A. L.

3,900.00

640.65

4,000.00

678.69

Moore, W. D.

2,000.00

1,291.78

2,000.00

1,171.74

Roberts, G. C.

3,400.00

623.57

2,400.00

472.90

------------

------------

------------

------------

$16,400.00

$6,628.80

$22,100.00

$7,006.45

"NOTE — When the Directors continue deliberations over lunch or

dinner, the Corporation pays the bill of fare. On these occasions, the

Directors deduct the applicable amount from their travel expense claim."

10 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of

Transportation, Communications and Highways the following questions:

1. Has the Government received a subsidy from the Federal Government

for transportation needs on the British Columbia Coast?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (

a) what was the total amount received, (

b) was this amount paid into general revenue, and (

c) what are the details of

expenditure of these funds to date?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (

a) Fiscal year 1977/78

$8,000,000

Fiscal year 1978/79

8,552,000

---------------

$16,552,000

(

b) Yes.

(

c) The British Columbia

Ferry Corporation has been paid by the Provincial Government,

sufficient funds under the Annual Highway Equivalent Subsidy which in

1977/78 was $48,378,500.00 and in 1978/79 was $51,384,050.00 and

sufficient of this was used in order to fulfil the Province's

commitment in respect to the Federal/Provincial Agreement."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright

© 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada