1981 Legislative Session: 3rd 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, APRIL 28, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5261 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Mr. Barrett –– 5261

Mr. Lockstead –– 5262

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

On vote 164: minister's office –– 5263

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to vote 164 –– 5263

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Howard

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Hall

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Lea

Mr. Barber

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

Mr. Ritchie

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the House to

welcome Mr. John Bannon, who is in the precincts and on his way here.

Mr. Bannon is the leader of the official opposition in South Australia,

and he leads the Labour Party there. They are only two seats behind the

government. They anticipate an election shortly in South Australia,

with a return of the Labour Party to government, and we anticipate the

same in British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like

to reciprocate with our good wishes, but perhaps not to quite the same

extent. I just had a very pleasant luncheon with the Hon. John Bannon

and his aide Mr. Geoff Anderson. They are on a tour of the western

provinces of Canada. They will be leaving British Columbia this

afternoon. On behalf of the government, I also wish them a good time in

our province and in the other provinces of our country.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have some outstanding ladies of

British Columbia. They are members of the British Columbia Social

Credit Party Women's Auxiliary. Would the House please welcome these

ladies from all over our province.

MR. HALL: I'd like

to introduce to the House a large group of students from Earl Marriott

Junior Secondary School in Surrey, accompanied by a group of exchange

students from the province of Quebec. They are accompanied by their

teacher, Mr. Juliusson of Surrey, and by M. Gagnon from Quebec. I hope

the members will join with me and the first member for Surrey, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), in welcoming this

party of students to the buildings.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House today at the far end is the

director of the International Year of the Disabled program, Mr. Doug

Mowat, who is well known to this House, I think. Doug is heading up a

very broadly based committee which will administer the program for the

International Year of the Disabled: it has more money available for

this purpose than all of the other provinces of Canada together. I

would ask the House to make Mr. Mowat welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I would like the House to recognize grade 11 and 12 students from

Richmond Senior Secondary School, who are attending the House today

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Henderson.

MR. STRACHAN:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the assembly today some

students from Prince George who are in the precincts. Would the House

please welcome students from Lakewood Secondary School and their

teacher, Miss Klomp.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the

precincts today is a group of elementary students from Bench Elementary

School in Merritt. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

MR. LEVI:

I would ask the House to welcome the member for Okanagan North (Hon.

Mrs. Jordan). The Minister of Tourism, I understand, is going to be in

the House this afternoon.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House the

members of the ladies auxiliary from the great riding of Cariboo. I

would particularly like the opposition to realize that that's why I'm

here and will continue to be here for a long time. Their names are

Doreen Bourque. Audrey King, Jean Klossen, Genevieve Gook, and my wife

Gertrude.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is unusually noisy today.

Seated

in the gallery today is a special guest. He is the Speaker of the House

of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji, the Hon. M. Qionibaravi.

I'd like the House to make him welcome.

MR. LAUK:

The House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) indicated in cross comment that the

Minister of Tourism is ill. Perhaps the Speaker could convey our best

wishes to her, and wish her a speedy recovery and return to the service

of the House.

Oral Questions

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

TO VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. BARRETT: Has the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources decided to reverse his decision

against the public hearing on the location of a natural gas pipeline to

Vancouver Island and allow a public hearing to determine the location —

whether it is to be a southern route or a northern route?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. BARRETT:

Can the minister inform the House how many requests he's had from

citizens' groups to have a public hearing, to reconsider his decision

on the location of that pipeline?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

No, I couldn't give that off the top of my head. I'd have to research

that and look through my correspondence. At the same time, I'd have to

bring the answer about the people who have supported the decision. I

haven't that answer with me, I'm sorry.

MR. BARRETT:

Am I to understand then that the government's decision is absolute and

that regardless of the Energy Commission's role there will be no public

hearing as to the location of that pipeline?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The Energy Commission is no longer part of this province. There is a

B.C. Utilities Commission now, which the member voted on last year in

the Legislature.

[ Page 5262 ]

The

government has made the decision that there will be a public hearing

into many aspects of costing and environmental concerns, but there will

not be one into the location of the pipeline.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, in the formula for making the decision for the location of

the pipeline, was the estimated price differential for the delivery of

natural gas by way of the northern pipeline compared with the southern

pipeline a factor? Was that price differential taken into consideration?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, this matter has

been under consideration by various governments for a long time. A lot

of information has been considered, including submissions to public

hearings held, I believe, in 1972. At that time the people of Vancouver

Island were hoping to have natural gas, but the previous government —

the NDP — reversed a decision to deliver natural gas to the island by

means of a pipeline and stopped those hearings. All of those things

were taken into consideration: the price of the gas, the capital cost

of the pipeline....

I'd like to bring a couple of those

figures to the floor of the Legislature. There were basically two

routes considered for the natural gas pipeline. For ease of

consideration we can call them the southern and northern routes: one

coining down from Williams Lake through Powell River to Vancouver

Island the other going across the Strait of Georgia from the

municipality of Delta, taking gas from Huntington. The capital cost on

the southern route — these are 1980 dollars — would be $125 million. On

the northern route it would be about $248 million.

It's very

difficult to come up with a cost-of-service figure because it depends

on how much gas is delivered, who uses the gas and where it's

delivered. Take a 20-year pay-back period on interest and service

charges, with gas volumes estimated by B.C. Hydro to be increasing from

16.8 billion cubic feet in the first year of the pipeline, which would

probably be 1984, to something like 38.7 billion cubic feet in the

twentieth year of the delivery of gas to Vancouver Island. Assume a

discount rate of approximately 3 percent in real terms. The levellized

cost of delivering natural gas to Vancouver Island, taking into account

all of those considerations of service for that natural gas — I'm

talking only of delivering natural gas to Vancouver Island; I don't

think the distribution on Vancouver Island should be a consideration

here because it doesn't matter who does the job or what the route is;

there will be distribution costs — the southern route would be $1.30

per thousand cubic feet, the northern route would be $2 per thousand

cubic feet. Given those capital costs, and the environmental conditions

that would be encountered coming down through the northern route and

all of the other factors, it was decided that the southern route was

cheaper, less environmentally sensitive, and more secure in delivering

gas to Vancouver Island at the earliest opportunity.

MR. BARRETT:

I welcome the information from the minister. I'd ask if the minister

would be prepared to table the formulas he outlined on the baseline of

the volumes predicted by B.C. Hydro. Somewhere a baseline has to be

initiated, and I would appreciate the minister announcing today that

the baseline was B.C. Hydro's, or whatever — the formula.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We've only chosen one.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, you have to pick one.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It could be any number.

MR. BARRETT:

I appreciate the minister saying that the chosen formulas applied to

both projects in terms of capital costs. As I understand it, the

minister has announced today that the capital cost would increase the

price of natural gas — whatever it is at the time it's delivered — by

$1.30 per thousand cubic feet on the southern route and $2 per thousand

cubic feet on the northern route, a 70 cent differential.

Mr.

Speaker, does the 70 cent differential announced by the minister today

limit the distribution of gas exclusively to domestic users, or does it

include industrial users as well?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't make any difference. You can choose any

number you want — 30 billion cubic feet or 50 billion cubic feet.

Somewhere you have to.... But I'm telling you on the basis of the

figures that I've given you that those are what the costs of service

would be. It's a purely mathematical formula. Now it doesn't matter

whether or not it's industrial, commercial or domestic use on those

volumes, because as that member should know — and he might ask the

member sitting next to him, who some time ago had some expertise, he

claims, in the business of natural gas in this province — we don't

charge any rate differential for domestic, industrial and commercial

use. The rate is the same. It is one rate across the province of

British Columbia, so it doesn't make any difference.

If the

member is asking whether or not we're considering using natural gas for

industrial purposes — which is a different kind of question; I don't

want to answer a question he hasn't asked — it has always been the

policy of this government to make natural gas available to as wide a

consumer audience as possible, whether or not it is commercial,

industrial or residential. But for one industrial part of our activity

in this province — and I'm talking mainly about the large forest

industry–related companies — it will be a requirement of this

government that those companies make full use of wood waste and the

products which those industries develop themselves, before they will

have the opportunity for cheap, subsidized natural gas.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister if he

disagrees with Hydro's own figure. He quoted that the Hydro project on

the southern route would cost $125 million. Hydro tells us the cost on

their proposal will be $301 million, and the fact is that the cost of

the Hydro proposal will be much higher than that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I wish I had that member's crystal ball. I'd perhaps ask one question

for the House to consider: whether or not the cost overruns might be

more probable in a line of new pipeline construction, which is

approximately 79 kilometres through very easy construction country, or

one which is something like 360 kilometres through some of the most

rugged, avalanche-prone country in British Columbia, having to cross 30

streams with the disruption that might do to the fish stocks.

Mr.

Speaker, the figures quoted by the member for Mackenzie are wrong in

terms of delivering natural gas to Vancouver Island. The capital cost

of new pipeline construction for the southern route in 1980 dollars is

estimated at $125 million; the capital cost of new pipeline

construction for the northern route is $248 million.

[ Page

5263 ]

There will be a number of other charges and costs encountered on Vancouver

Island to distribute the natural gas once it gets to Vancouver Island. That

cost will be common to whoever should build the line. It won't matter whether

it is Westcoast Transmission, Centennial Transmission or British Columbia Hydro;

the lines will have to be upgraded in Victoria and Nanaimo, those two areas

where some gas services are already available, and in distribution lines to

Port Alberni and Campbell River. Those charges will be constant, Mr. Speaker,

and they'll be borne by everyone. But the capital costs, which the people

will be asked to bear through cost of service one way or another, will be double

and then some for the northern line as compared to the southern line, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT:

If the minister is so sure of his figures, why is he frightened to hold

a public hearing on all of these matters so they can be heard publicly?

What are you afraid of?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not frightened of anything, particularly that little member for Vancouver East across there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I suppose there comes a time when governments are elected to govern,

and we have been elected to govern. We're not afraid to make decisions.

I'd like a commitment from that member over there that if he, in some

kind of accident of fate, ever had the chance to be government again,

he would put this whole matter on the shelf again and deny the people

of Vancouver Island gas for another five years.

MR. BARRETT:

I ask the government of the day why, if it is so sure of its figures,

it is frightened to hold a public hearing on this important issue to

let the figures stand to public scrutiny. What are you frightened of?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

As I indicated earlier perhaps I didn't indicate it strongly enough;

this is a matter which has been before government for many years. There

was a decision required to be taken if we were to fulfill the mandate,

which is that we must end our dependence on imported, expensive oil as

quickly as possible. One of the best ways we can do that is to make

available, as quickly as possible and to as many people as possible in

this province, the natural gas which we have in abundance and which I

feel confident will be the fuel of the future for this province.

Having all that information at public hearings in the past rejected as an energy

goal by the previous government, we felt it was time we fulfilled the mandate

to deliver natural gas to Vancouver Island as quickly as possible. We want that

gas flowing on this island by 1983 or early 1984. I don't apologize for

the decision which was made, but I do say this in further expansion. There will

be public hearings, and there are a lot of important decisions yet to be made

in terms of whether or not the gas is rolled in as a kind of postage-stamp rate

across the province. Those figures will have to stand up to public scrutiny

at that time. At that time, all those figures will be advanced. They will have

to stand up to public scrutiny, and there will be a full public hearing as soon

as B.C. Hydro is able to make application.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 164: minister's office. $195,103.

MRS. DAILLY:

I would like to move that vote 164 be reduced to the amount of $4.50,

which is, as most of us are aware, the average price of a theatre

ticket today. Then I would like to speak on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order, hon. member. Proceed.

On the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY:

I ant to assure the House that this is not a frivolous motion. The

reason I have moved it and related it to the price of a movie theatre

ticket is because this government can't differentiate between using tax

money to produce Hollywood-style productions to keep up their image and

true information. It is a very serious issue.

All of this

morning we tried to point out to this minister that what he is doing

with the taxpayers' money in British Columbia through information

services under his jurisdiction is politically immoral. The difficulty

we have with that minister and with this government is that they cannot

seem to differentiate between using the hard-earned tax dollars of the

public to boost up their own images, and giving sheer, straight facts

and information to the public. That is the issue. It is how you use

your advertising assistance. It is how you use the media that you have

set up for yourselves. It is how you use them. We have moved this

motion of non-confidence and related it to a theatre ticket to point

this out hopefully to that minister and to some members on the back

bench perhaps who surely have some sense of political morality. We're

hoping they will stand up and approve our motion, which expresses

non-confidence in that minister.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY:

The Socred backbenchers are saying across the floor: "You must be

kidding." You know, Mr. Chairman, we are not kidding. The public of

B.C. Is not kidding when they say to us: "We resent our money being

used to build up the Socred image on a partisan basis."

would like to ask that minister, who is busy talking to some of his

aides, how he can justify using the taxpayers' money to create new

hairdos for some of his minister and giving acting lessons to some

others. I want to ask the minister how he can justify using the

taxpayers' money for that purpose. The issue here today is that they

cannot differentiate between the misuse of taxpayers' money and using

it in what we hoped would be a factual way.

I recall that

there were a lot of jokes about Joe Clark having to have a special

hairdresser prior to the convention. May I say, from everything I've

been able to check on, at least that was paid for by the Conservative

Party. That is the

[ Page 5264 ]

difference.

What right has any minister to stand in this House and ask us to

approve a vote using tax money to change hairdos in the cabinet and to

give them acting lessons? I'm asking the minister how he could possibly

expect us to support that. I don't know, Mr. Chairman.

But

perhaps he can answer this. I would like to know if Mr. and Mrs.

Sedawie — this is nothing personal about them; they're probably very

talented people — are sitting in the gallery. Somebody said to me that

they were. Is that correct? Mr. Minister, did you nod your head? They

were not introduced to the House. If they're sitting in the gallery —

we hope we will hear a reply from the minister — I would like to know

the purpose of a group of people being paid under that minister's vote

to sit in this gallery when they're supposed to be technicians

producing and assisting in producing videotapes. Have you hired them as

politicians, strictly on a partisan basis? What is the purpose of their

sitting in the gallery? I guess this very moment they're checking on

the behaviour of the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). The Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) is not here to have her hairdo checked. This is becoming

a travesty, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm the one who needs help.

MRS. DAILLY:

We kept telling the former Attorney-General that he needed help. But at

no time did we take tax money to try to fix him up — unfortunately.

dealt with this this morning. We intend to continue, on other votes, in

this whole area of information services. At this time I just wanted to

say that this is not a facetious motion. We do not think the taxpayers

should have to pay for this nonsense on a partisan basis to boost up

the Social Credit Party image.

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Chairman, when my colleague from Burnaby moved the amendment to reduce

the money in this vote to $4.50, there were immediate cries across the

floor classifying it as frivolous. The immediate response of Social

Credit was one of frivolity and accusation. It's not frivolous. It's a

very serious condemnation of the minister and the politics inherent in

the minister's activities. It's a vote of confidence not only in the

minister but in his activities in the area of propagandizing. It's a

motion relating to confidence with respect to the attempt of the

ministry to misuse public funds for partisan purposes. It's a

condemnation of the activity of the ministry to draw the integrity of

public servants into question and to use public servants employed in

the audio-visual centre for partisan purposes under the direction of a

politically appointed deputy minister.

That's the essence of

this motion. We selected $4.50 because I understand that's a reasonable

price one expects to pay to go to a movie these days. It was used to

draw attention particularly to the fact that the minister has

authorized the expenditure of $14,000 of taxpayers' money to employ the

services of a couple of filmmakers to polish up the image of

government. That's the essence of this motion. There's nothing

frivolous about it at all. A very serious question of confidence is

expressed in the amendment.

The minister said earlier that

no change is to take place in this audio-visual centre. It's going to

be doing the same things it did before. I want to submit to you, Mr.

Chairman, that that is arrant nonsense and inaccurate. Of course, if

the minister wants to challenge the statements attributed to the film

department production manager, Mr. Maurice Chazottes, who said that the

emphasis of the audio-visual centre is no longer on staff training....

That's an alteration, isn't it? It used to be for staff training, and

now it's gone; it's not going to be used for that purpose. Isn't that a

change, Mr. Minister? How could you stand in your place earlier today

and say there's no change taking place when the production manager of

the centre says a change has taken place? They're going to dispense

with using that centre for staff training films.

If the fact

is accurate — it was referred to earlier by my colleague from the

riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and the minister took no

occasion to correct what my colleague had said at that time, so I

assume it is correct — that the B.C. government has just signed a

contract with ACTRA, the Association of Canadian Television and Radio

Artists, for the purpose of using professional actors in government

films, is that not a change in the operation, function, direction and

orientation of the audio-visual centre? Of course it's a change.

MR. BARBER: What did Wolfe say this morning?

MR. HOWARD:

The minister said this morning that there was no change and that it was

the same plan and program. His production manager of the department

said: "Yes, there is a change." The government appears to have signed a

contract with ACTRA. That's a change. We just can't believe the

minister. We can neither believe what he says about there being no

change nor believe that he really appreciates what is the fundamental

question here. The fundamental question which we're attacking and

looking at, which the minister has to answer for, is partisan politics

being used — the employment of taxpayers' money for partisan politics,

the use of taxpayers' money to advance the cause of Social Credit, the

disgusting misuse of public funds and the public trust placed in that

minister by the general public. That's what this amendment is all

about. It's about the condemnation of that sort of disgraceful activity.

There

is an increase in the allotment of money for advertising that will be

under the control of Mr. Heal and the minister. They're companions on

this. Mr. Heal is a politically appointed deputy minister. He is not

going to budge unless the minister approves it because politics is

involved. There is an increase in the funds available for advertising

to the audio-visual centre. The increase is 4,937 percent, which Mr.

Heal, the slick filmmakers and the image polishers will have access to.

It's an unbelievable increase. That's only in one vote in this

minister's department. In one vote alone, there's an increase of 4,937

percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the dollars?

MR. HOWARD:

My friend wants to know dollars. I'll give you the dollars scattered

throughout the whole range of government departments. I'll give you the

dollars in one vote alone in here of that 4,937 percent increase. The

increase is from $8,000 to over $400,000 in one vote alone.

addition to that, scattered all throughout every government department

there is an additional $20.5 million available to Mr. Heal. It's

available to the Provincial Secretary for partisan, rotten, corruptible

political purposes on behalf of Social Credit. Not that the minister

falls in that category, but the use of the funds is for that purpose.

It's a misuse. It's a

[ Page

5265 ]

blatant

and arrogant thumbing of the nose to the general taxpayers of this

province to ask them to fork over, through tax increases, $20.5 million

and put it in the hands and under the control of the Provincial

Secretary so that he and his agency — the audio-visual agency....

HON. MR. WOLFE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we would seek your advice on one

point here. The member is addressing himself to the overall

expenditures of all ministries of the government. The Ministry of the

Provincial Secretary and Government Services has responsibility for the

government information deputy minister, who coordinates the

expenditures for publications and other information of all ministries.

would ask you whether it's appropriate and in order to discuss under

this heading the advertising expenditures of all ministries. If so, we

can enter into debate on that question. This particular ministry has a

vote for public information — vote 180 — which, incidentally, shows an

increase of only 13 percent. I don't wish to debate that question here,

but just to ask your advice on whether we're going to inject a debate

on the total advertising of all government ministries, which might more

properly fall under the first minister's vote or some other. It is not

this minister's responsibility to decide how much money is spent by

each ministry for advertising and publications.

MR. HOWARD:

On the same point of order, I seek to point out, as we did earlier,

that the description relating to the funds available in the ministry

which we're examining at the moment says that there is an audio-visual

production centre for use by all ministries. That is point number one.

In adding up the total amounts in allocation of funds for this

audiovisual centre, there is an item called "Recoveries from other

ministries: credit, $50,000," and I submit that provides the

relationship. This vote — the description of it, the fact that they're

going to recover some money from other ministries, charges for using it

and so on — provides all ministries with access to this audio-visual

centre, and puts all ministries, operating to the extent that they want

to operate, through the propaganda machine being set up by the minister.

Point

number two. Before the lunch break, Mr. Chairman, the minister himself

engaged in a debate in this chamber, covering such subject matters as

the unemployment rate in the province, B.C. Place, northeast coal and a

variety of other subjects having nothing whatever to do with this

ministry, and nobody questioned it. The Chairman sat in the chair,

listened and was silent in permitting the minister to go in that

direction. I submit to you that not because that happened, but because

the vote here provides us with this opportunity, we are entitled to

point out the fact that the minister and his propaganda deputy minister

have got their fingers and their hands on a potential $20 million

scattered throughout all the ministries for propaganda purposes to

advance the cause of Social Credit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the points made by both the member for Skeena

and the minister are well taken. However, again I would point out, as I pointed

out earlier this morning, that each and every member must use some form of discretion.

It would be most inappropriate to relate each and every ministerial activity

of each and every ministry under one vote, or we would do away with the effectiveness

of this committee in going through the votes as we should in Committee of Supply.

It's a very fine line; I hope hon. members appreciate that. The Chair appreciates

it, but I would ask that each member exercise the appropriate judgment, so that

debate in Committee of Supply may continue for the purpose for which it is determined.

I will undertake on behalf of the committee to further review this subject as

we proceed, but in the meantime I would ask all members to use that discretion.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, your very wise words are taken and appreciated, I'm sure,

by everybody in the committee. I think I should also mention, apropos

of that, that I was not seeking to discuss every ministry's activity; I

was only seeking to discuss the propaganda aspect of this ministry and

the minister's access to the $20.5 million out there in all of the

other ministries for advertising purposes only.

The minister

said earlier there will be no change; everything is going to be the

same. Well, we show him that in two instances he was inaccurate or

wrong or gave information to the House which didn't fit on all fours

with the facts of the situation, by pointing out that they've signed a

contract with ACTRA and that they're going to dispense with the staff

training films for public servants. Those are changes.

Another

significant and important change took place on this subject matter.

That was a political decision made by the government to appoint a

deputy minister to be in charge of this whole operation. Prior to the

appointment of Mr. Heal, the audio-visual centre operating within the

Ministry of Health was run by public servants who were committed and

dedicated to the cause of in-staff training and providing information

public servants with the integrity that all public servants have, who

are doing a job on behalf of the general public. The change that has

now taken place puts them under the authority and control of a

political appointment. The minister and his deputy, one an elected

political figure and the other an appointed political figure, are going

to interfere with the integrity of public servants. That's a change.

One

could accept the idea that the appointment of Mr. Heal as a deputy

minister, as a communications planning adviser, was okay; one could buy

the statement that, "Yes, we want someone to coordinate all of this —

it hasn't been running the way it should have been running in terms of

public programs." On the surface, one could say, "Yes, that's a fine

move," if it weren't for one significant thing that Mr. Heal did right

from the start. The ink wasn't dry on his contract when he was rushing

off to a secret closed meeting of the Social Credit Party. Why did he

go there? Politics, partisan politics, that's why he went there. That

made the whole government statement about the purpose of this

audio-visual centre suspect. As soon as Mr. Heal found that it was

necessary to go to a secret closed meeting of Social Crediters to talk

with those Social Crediters at that meeting in Harrison Hot Springs

about who knows what.... The minute he did that he and the minister

placed themselves in a different category. They besmirched the whole

structure and concept of the audio-visual centre. That's a change that

took place.

The second thing that occurred is that this same

minister, the Provincial Secretary, and his buddy, the deputy minister

of propaganda, picked up the phone to telephone — I imagine they did it

by phone — a couple of people in Hollywood and said: "Please come up.

Please look at what our ministers have been doing and how they have

been getting the message

[ Page 5266 ]

across."

That's partisan politics on behalf of Social Credit. That was another

wrong move, showing that we simply cannot believe the Provincial

Secretary when he says there is to be no change in the function and the

operation of the audiovisual centre. Of course there's to be a change.

The minister is wrong in saying otherwise. He either said there was to

be no change fully believing there was to be no change, in which case I

believe he's been made a dupe of, or he said there was to be no change

knowing full well that he was not stating the facts of the situation. I

submit to you that he knew the facts of the situation.

was the guy — this minister, this Provincial Secretary who reached out

and drew Mr. Heal into orbit. He said: "I want to make you the deputy

minister in charge of the politics of government. I want to make you

the deputy minister to propagandize the general public on behalf of

Social Credit, and use the taxpayers' money to do it." The minister

knew full well what he was doing. The minister doesn't seem — and

perhaps that's why he's in Social Credit; perhaps that's why his

seatmate from Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is so involved in

these matters as well.... I submit he minister does know the difference

between having a deputy minister in charge of administering the

functions of a department, providing services to the general public,

and having a deputy minister like this guy, Doug Heal, appointed purely

and simply to propagandize.

We have some government

backbenchers who are very nervous about this matter. I know the former

Minister of Transport and Communications, the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), certainly doesn't approve of his sort of

chicanery. He certainly would never have approved it if he was still in

the ministry, but he's not. He certainly wouldn't have endorsed it if

he was still sitting on he treasury benches. He certainly wouldn't have

approved it n the closed, secret meetings of cabinet. He would have

been your strongest critic then, and he is now, because he has a decent

streak about him.

MR. LAUK: Common decency.

MR. HOWARD:

Common decency is inherent in the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, a

person who has been speared by the Premier. He has taken that and said:

"Okay, it doesn't matter what you do to me. I'm going to be loyal." But

common decency tells the member for North Vancouver–Seymour that he

simply cannot accept this sort of manipulation and misuse of taxpayers'

money.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hyndman), if only he was still sitting on this side of the House as

a government backbencher, would be up complaining about this.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. HOWARD:

He would indeed. I have faith that he would do the honourable thing.

But now that he's in the cabinet, he won't. He'll have to stand up and

vote for propagandizing and for misusing and misappropriating the

taxpayers' money.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't bother him.

MR. HOWARD: It may not bother him, but he'll have to do it.

Peter, the Premier isn't here today to keep you in line. He could vote against it, but I don't think he will.

The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has very seriously questioned the

integrity of the government on a couple of issues fundamental to him.

That indicates a streak of concern about the propriety of the way

government runs things. I would expect the member for Omineca, seeing

that his tax dollars and tax dollars of the people of Omineca are going

to be forcibly extracted and used for Social Credit propaganda

machinery.... The member for Omineca, competent and able in his own

right, doesn't need that kind of help in Omineca. I can see him full

well expressing his disagreement with this sort of misuse.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on more than one

occasion has criticized the Premier for things that the Premier has

attempted to do or not attempted to do, or for the way in which he has

done them. He's publicly expressed that criticism on two or three

occasions, as I recall — carefully worded but nonetheless critical.

Here's another opportunity for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to

stand up and say: "I don't like this idea of taking the taxpayers'

money from them and using it for partisan purposes on behalf of Social

Credit through a ministry dedicated to nothing but propaganda." Here's

an opportunity for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to exhibit that

quality of decency that he has about him and show to the general

public.... If he wants to do it — he's smiling at me now — we'll gladly

give him the opportunity.

Perhaps apropos of that, to give

members on the other side an opportunity to reflect upon the suggestion

that they stand up as men and women and be counted, I move that the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. HOWARD:

I wonder if I could direct a question through you, sir — to the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), inasmuch as she.... It's the

only opportunity we have. No?

[ Page

5267 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are on an amendment presently before us on vote 164.

MR. HOWARD:

Well, inasmuch as I can't ask the Minister of Tourism a question here,

and I can't ask it during question period because she's deliberately

absent during question period, perhaps I should take my seat.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, I've been made privy to a secret report from Doug Heal

that I want to read to the committee. It is of such grave importance

that I think it commands the attention of each and every hon. member. I

don't want the press to get hold of this at all, so I suggest that, on

our honour, such as that is, we all keep it to ourselves.

The

memorandum has indicated that, in view of the fact that the names,

Christian or otherwise, chosen for cabinet members are not in keeping

with the kind of name that would attract public attention in a positive

way, the assistant associate deputy hoohaw, Mr. Heal, has suggested

that the following names be substituted for the various members of

cabinet. For the Premier and president of the council he suggests Leo

Gorcey. The reason for that is that Leo Gorcey was short, he had a

temper and he loved to fight at the Bowery, in the streets and so on,

and it was felt he was also a leader of sorts. This is the image Mr.

Heal wants to get across to the public.

Now the Deputy

Premier and Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs McCarthy). In his

report Mr. Heal says this was tough. A committee had to travel

throughout the length and breadth of the province and take a trip on

the Royal Hudson down to Hollywood to obtain permission to use the only

possible name, Zsa Zsa Gabor. We mean no disrespect, Mr. Chairman. We

feel that Zsa Zsa Gabor best captures the image that Mr. Heal wants to

get across to the public, and reflects adequately the seriousness with

which that particular cabinet minister performs her duty.

The

Provincial Secretary was, perhaps, a very difficult one, yet easy on

the one hand. I want all members of the committee to realize that the

minister has not seen this very secret and confidential report from Mr.

Heal. Some very uncharitable people are suggesting that Mr. Heal hasn't

seen this confidential report. However, we'll deal with that in a

moment.

Mr. Heal suggests that for his boss, Evan Wolfe just

doesn't sell. He suggests that we rename him Ed Wynn. The younger

members in this chamber, like the members for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) and Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), wouldn't remember Ed Wynn.

But Ed Wynn was the happy-go-lucky little fellow in the movies who was

a little bit scatterbrained but a nice fellow. Do you remember that? He

came across as a warm muffin. Doug Heal means no offence to the

minister, but he feels that to capture the proper....

The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). I don't know where he is, but

he's the simplest one, and my friend from Prince Rupert knows it. Doug

Heal was listening once when my friend from Prince Rupert shouted

across the floor "the Man from Glad." I think that the Man from Glad —

you know, that tall white-haired man, protecting us, administering the

justice system in this province.... Mr. Heal felt that the Man from

Glad image was probably the best for the Attorney-General.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is a combination of appearance, personality

and the budget speech. Doug Heal feels that although this may not be a positive

thing for the government, it at least would reflect the real perceived image

in the public, and they will name him Bela Lugosi.

The

Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) was very difficult

indeed. Every time Mr. Heal tried to have a look at the Minister of

Agriculture and Food he was standing underneath a light, and poor Mr.

Heal was blinded. But he felt that because three or four crops of

lettuce a year are grown every year under the minister's tutelage and

because the member is relatively harmless.... Those are Mr. Heal's

words. Other persons in the Provincial Secretary's office describe him

as ineffectual. but I certainly would not want to side with that. The

name chosen by Douglas Heal for the minister is rather revealing —

Benjamin Bunny.

Now we'll skip a few, because we have to

move along. I notice that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) is here. Sometimes there is no possible living actor to

describe the personality and image of ministers in the cabinet, but

Douglas Heal, after taking a poll among 427,000 civil servants — it's

grown somewhat — thought perhaps Captain Hook from Peter Pan would be

best suited. That smile of Captain Hook's just sears across the

memories of all living British Columbians.

For the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) there

was a lot of argument that he should be named after the alligator in

"Peter Pan." but Douglas Heal being the professional that he is

rejected that out of hand. He felt that one caricature representing

that post is enough, and he would suggest that perhaps Sydney

Greenstreet should be the name that would best represent him.

For the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). the obvious thing is the Fonz.

For the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips), that's not too difficult. "With all respect to W.C.,

we're naming him W.C. Fields," said Mr. Heal.

The Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is named after an obscure

character, usually associated with Lon Chaney — Igor.

The

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman).... I

don't want to belabour this. The report will soon be published and made

available to the public. For the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, it was felt that Vincent Price would be a more appropriate

name.

You know, Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of good fun

with the Douglas Heal incident. I was not going to enter the debate.

All kinds of capable debaters have entered into this debate, and we're

now debating the amendment. The thing that occurred to me this morning

was that the Provincial Secretary does not understand the issue. He got

up and asked the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) if he had ever

used the services of the make-up room at BCTV or something. He just

doesn't understand the issue, that it's not the use of someone like

Doug Heal or Norman and Gayle from Hollywood that offend us and the

people of British Columbia. It is the use of taxpayers' money for that

purpose that offends us. I wish the Provincial Secretary would

understand that this is what the opposition is trying to get across.

Taxpayers' money is being used in a crass political way. They're using

money, hard-earned cash, raising taxes off the backs of ordinary people

in this province to pay for their make-up, their movie and their

glitter in trying to improve their impossible image in the province.

That's the issue.

[ Page 5268 ]

is an offensive thing to get up time and time again and defend the

indefensible — the use of hard-earned tax dollars raised off the backs

of ordinary people who have to pay increased sales tax, increased

medicare payments, increased homeowner taxation, increased ICBC rates,

transit levies on their Hydro bills, extra meter rate levies, and

higher Hydro bills because of actions taken by this government directly

and through income tax increases. Surpluses are building up, and the

money is being spent not to improve our education, our hospitals and

our highways or to give us good transit, but to improve the image of

political personalities and a political party who just happen to occupy

the seats of the cabinet. That is a disgraceful misuse of public funds.

It is outrageous and one of the worst condemnations that can be made of

this government. It was bad enough when we had the Eckardt report

gerrymandering here and there all over the province. Using a political

person like Eckardt in such an important royal commission was

disgraceful. It was bad enough that we had the dirty tricks affair and

that the Premier provided a lack of moral leadership that would lead to

the kind of corruption that happened within the Social Credit Party.

seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that all of those were bad enough. But to

use actual taxpayers' money — the public purse — to get out of the bad

image that was created by those events is totally and completely

unforgivable. Members of the Social Credit Party throughout the

province are shaking their heads in disgust and regret. They are

embarrassed and humiliated by the actions of this government. Don't

just believe me; ask the members yourselves. It is a humiliation indeed

for them to belong to a party and to have supported individuals who

will take the lowest possible course of action.

It isn't the

only aspect of this ministry that's being used in a crass, partisan,

political way. It's an offence against the Financial Control Act and

the Constitution Act. I suggest that the Attorney-General look at these

aspects. This having been raised, I doubt very much whether the

comptroller-general will approve funds for Douglas Heal for these

projects. I demand to know from the Provincial Secretary whether

approval of Heal's salary and approval of the contract for the Sedawies

has been given by the comptroller-general. If that approval has been

given, it should be tabled in this committee and in the House. We

should know that before we get too far along in the Provincial

Secretary's estimates. If he has approved moneys for the Sedawies to

come up here on a contract that is undenied, then the

comptroller-general should be brought before the bar of this House to

be questioned by all hon. members about why, in the face of the law

clearly set out in the Financial Control Act, he would approve it. It's

not the first time this minister and this ministry have permitted

crass, political activity and partisanship to take over the functions

of the ministry and the public purse.

I want to talk about the lotteries branch and the ombudsman who submitted a

report thoroughly condemning this minister and this ministry for political interference

in the administration of lottery funds. It's a scandalous situation that

this minister is allowing himself to be used in a political way by his party

and for partisan interests. He has not answered the criticisms of the ombudsman

about the disgraceful way that lottery funds are used in a pork-barrel fashion

to bolster up Social Credit MLAs and ridings. This kind of political activity

and partisanship will not be forgotten by the people of British Columbia and

certainly will not be forgotten by the people in Kamloops and in the next general

election in this province.

One

of the biggest items we have to deal with as far as the government is

concerned is why people are paying these outrageous taxes to support

the partisan political activities of this administration. Transpo '86

is another question. Even at that, what are we going to expect out of

Transpo '86 now that we have the example of Douglas Heal and the

partisan way lottery funds are dispensed in this province? How are the

contracts going to be let for Transpo'86? Are they going to be let to

friends or to Social Credit card-carrying hacks? What's going to happen

at Transpo '86? What's going to be displayed: huge monster-sized

photographs of ministers, with their names underneath and lights

shining all around them? What can we expect from Transpo'86? This

government will stoop to anything and will misuse the taxpayers' funds

using any program. It is indeed reprehensible that this ministry and

this government will use taxpayers' funds in this fashion. We call upon

the minister to show us proof that the expenditures were approved by

the comptroller-general.

MR. HALL: There are a whole

host of things which we can discuss under the minister's vote, but I

want to join my colleagues and first of all deal with this particular

event which is of such recent and current timing.

When I

first heard of the establishment of this propaganda arm of the

government, together with the huge expenditures of money, followed by

the revelations of Hollywood North, I looked at the calendar to see if

it indeed was 1981 and not 1984. Whole sections of that novel Nineteen Eighty-Four

come to mind when one examines what this government is attempting to

do, in buying its way out of trouble, in buying its way back into the

public's favour and in buying its way back to some kind of electoral

victory. We've seen its behaviour, as illustrated just recently in the

last contribution made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk), in terms of redistribution.

It's not good enough to

simply think that because it's happening in British Columbia, because

there are a couple of good old boys over there we really shouldn't

worry about it. We've known some of them for a few years, we've broken

bread with them on a few occasions, and they live at the end of our

street, but that's no reason to abandon the principles that should

operate in a democracy in terms of using taxpayers' money for political

purposes. The fact that they're a bunch of good old boys shouldn't

deflect this opposition from pointing out the principal shortcomings of

this government when it takes upon itself this kind of activity.

Hypothetically,

let's change the scenario. Let's forget that this is taking place in

British Columbia. Let's use a couple of other names. Let's not use the

words that the Provincial Secretary is using — this "coordinating

function," this "group of people who are just going to talk about

communications." Let's call it Tass news agency. All sorts of different

connotations come to mind then. Not a bunch of good old boys then, you

say; oh, no, that's political. There's no difference whatsoever.

The

fact that I know most of these people personally doesn't make any

difference to the principle. The fact that we're all British Columbians

and Canadians doesn't make any difference to the principle.

Let's

take another example. Suppose this wasn't taking place in British

Columbia. Let's forget the fact that these two producers have come up

the west coast from Hollywood and have settled in B.C. Let's suggest

that all this was taking place in Iran. What would we be saying about

it as we were

[ Page

5269 ]

sitting down over our poached eggs at breakfast

time and reading about the government of Iran setting up this video

machine, this agency, this group of people, to make the ayatollah look

better?

Let's substitute the word Tass. Let's substitute the

country Iran for British Columbia. Then what's going on starts to make

some sense. Then it's not so darn funny. Whilst we've made a humorous

point, to make the point, it's much more serious than that. When I see

the kind of things in Nineteen Eighty-Four ,

in the Tass agency and in Iran, you tell me what scrap of darn

difference there is between what's going on in those three instances

and what's going on on the other side of the House. There's nothing

different.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

started off as a good joke in the days of W.A.C. Bennett: filming "The

Good Life" on taxpayers' money. How we exposed that was part of the

reason for that government's defeat. Make no mistake about it. That

two-bit film has now turned into a million-dollar nightmare on the

other side.

I must support any curtailment of the state's

intrusion into bending people's minds and into altering, slanting and

putting forward their views. As long as I'm in the opposition and this

opposition is functioning, that's what we're going to be doing.

Now,

you can say all you like about it being just to make a couple of

training films or to make sure your story is understood a little bit

better or that it's to make vaccination a bit more — if I can mix my

metaphors — palatable. It's nothing of the sort. As I've said before,

just get this thing into context. Forget it's happening in beautiful

B.C. Forget they're just a bunch of good old boys over there, and just

use some of these other illustrations I've made, and you'll see where

the principle really comes home to roost. And that's why everybody in

this House.... The government should withdraw and abandon the whole

thing. It should 'fess up and say: "We made a mistake; we got carried

away. We knew we were in trouble; we got carried away." Back off,

because I'm telling you that you're just going to get further and

further into trouble. I urge everybody to support, in effect, the

singular and distinct criticism that should be heaped on this

government for this kind of activity.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I heard it said repeatedly on the other side that when all the fun has

been removed from this topic, the main concern is spending public funds

for the purpose of trying to improve somebody's image or government

communications, and so on. I'd just like to put two or three facts

forward. I have difficulty fabricating to provide the sort of fiction,

which later becomes fact; I just have to revert to what are the truest

facts of the situation.

I'd like to deal with what we're spending in this ministry on public

information, advertising and promotion. A member opposite — I believe

the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — said that there was an increase of

4,000 percent in this ministry on advertising for government

information. I think the members should appreciate — and I presume it

has not been clear to them before — that under this particular vote,

funds which were previously in code 90 in this ministry have been

consolidated to the extent of some $300,000. So the increase that you

see, alleged to be 4,000 percent in vote 180, having to do with

advertising and promotion, is really something like $100,000 instead —

not $300,000. There were some funds for advertising in code 90 and code

40 in the previous year. I'm simply explaining that those funds were

consolidated, so there's been a decrease in the code 90 expenditures

from $304,000 in 1980-81 to $100,000 in item 90, commonly known as

other expenditures. That represents a reduction of approximately

$200,000. The actual increase of $191,000 allocated to advertising and

publications represents an additional 47 percent over the amount

actually spent on this activity in the previous year.

I'd like to

explain why this is so. There is a terrific thrust due to inflation on

the costs of printing and other materials associated with advertising

and publications, more so perhaps in this case than in any other area

in our economy today. There is an increase in the cost of printing

ranging from about 15 percent for the most basic job in black and white

to about 20 percent for the more sophisticated four-colour work. There

are increases of about 15 percent in the cost of magazine and newspaper

advertising, 14 percent in the cost of radio commercials and 18 percent

in the cost of television commercials. So the increase which appears to

show in that vote — which the member referred to earlier — is really

not as indicative....

I think the member for Skeena also

asked: "What was the actual increase in the audio-visual centre?" Well,

that increase is only some 3.4 percent. The budget allocated to the

cost of operating the audio-visual centre, which is now under the

Provincial Secretary, has been increased from $627,000 to $648,000.

That's a modest increase. When you relate it to the rest of this

inflationary impact, that increase is only 3.4 percent.

Now

there's been a lot of jargon from across the way. One comment I heard

was that we're associating ourselves with ACTRA to hire actors

associated with film productions. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can recall

Bruno Gerussi — a professional actor, I believe — being used in ICBC

ads back in 1974. I presume that met with the approval of the

government of the day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The member says: "I don't understand." I'm just saying that it's not a

brand-new policy to be hiring an actor to be used in a film, whether

it's for training purposes or otherwise.

The first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) talked about our authority to pay for

the new deputy minister of information programs and the authority to

pay for the contract associated with people he employs in this

ministry. I say to him that the comptroller-general s authority for

this is exercised through our interim supply bill. Of course, in the

case of Mr. Heal, the authority is expressed through the

order-in-council which was passed appointing him under that

section of

the Public Service Act. So any authority associated with the

comptroller-general he seemed to allude to earlier is certainly there

under the Supply Act. I can't understand his point; I don't think he

really understands the nature and relationship between the Supply Act

and the authority which any one of these ministries has to appoint

people. So I think that he's on a sort of wild goose chase there and

that he doesn't really quite understand.

In terms of

government expenditure, the entire amount spent in this ministry on

government information programs for the Provincial Secretary is an

increase from last year of

[ Page 5270 ]

13.7 percent, which represents something less than the total increase in the budget expenditures of this province.

Mr.

Chairman, a lot has been said once again about the audio-visual centre.

I tried to explain earlier that in the past year it has been used to a

great degree on training films. There is no intention to change the

policy of that production centre. It entered full production in May

1980, and it has produced 23 major audio-visual programs. The most

significant of these programs, I repeat, were 13 one-hour presentations

for the Knowledge Network. I don't imagine members opposite would find

fault with spending public funds on the development of programs for the

Ministry of Education.

In addition, the unit has produced

numerous 30-second and one-minute spots. Ministries all across the

spectrum have used the service, and there is a charge-back facility.

This audio-visual centre is no different, as far as this ministry is

concerned — and I have responsibility for Government Services — than

the Queen's Printer. The Queen's Printer provides services to all

ministries and charges for those services. That's the object of this

government: to provide accountability, to have it located and

coordinated in one spot and to have the best expertise available to

provide professional service.

Mr. Chairman, there is no

change in the direction, the nature or purpose of that audio-visual

centre. Taking a broad focus on this whole topic, I might say that we

made a promise to the people of British Columbia to make information

available. In this ministry we're providing the funds and the staff

needed to carry out that promise and responsibility by providing

support services for the line ministries which deal with the public.

Mr.

Chairman, the opposition would have you believe that information and

the right to information is bad; I think this is really what's irking

them. On the contrary, the people of this province have a right to

obtain information about their government and its programs when they

want it. Research has shown that the majority of people today get most

of their information from television rather than from print sources, so

that in the 1980s the government must recognize that it has to put

emphasis on providing information in audio-visual form as well as in

printed announcements and information folders.

MR. LAUK:

The minister refuses to realize or understand in a wilfully

unintelligent way — I know the minister is intelligent, but he's

wilfully unintelligent by pretending he doesn't understand the issue.

The issue is not whether Bruno Gerussi was hired by the Insurance

Corporation to do an ad; the issue is whether the use of Heal's

department and public funds to improve the image of politicians is the

same as using Bruno Gerussi to advertise for the NDP at public expense.

He doesn't realize that that's the issue in this case. He says Bruno

Gerussi being hired by an insurance corporation to do their ads is the

same thing. I've never heard such a confused minister in this chamber

before.

He's had the same problem with the Minister of

Finance. He got up and said: "My authority for spending these funny

moneys is under the interim supply act." On several occasions last

Thursday we referred to the

section of the Financial Control Act under

which we were asking the questions. He didn't listen to the questions.

He was a Minister of Finance for I don't know how long, and he doesn't

know what's required under the Financial Control Act. This is what it

says under

section 23: "The comptroller-general shall see that no

cheque is issued for the payment of any public money for which there is

no direct legislative authority. And pursuant to that" — the issuance

of cheques in

section 25 — "the comptroller-general must give his

approval to certify that the moneys going out have had direct

legislative authority." So whether or not the Provincial Secretary

thinks he's got legislative authority or not, the comptroller-general

has to approve the funds as being authorized under a legislative vote.

I'd like to see any comptroller-general in this province say that the

funds expended for this tinsel Hollywood show were directly authorized

by the Legislature. It's contempt for this House for the minister to

suggest otherwise.

MR. BARRETT: First of all, on this

amendment I want to bring to the attention of the minister some more

information that he's probably not aware of, because it seems that the

minister is carrying the can for decisions which have been delegated

without the sensitivity of politics being understood by the person

who's making the decision. For instance, when Mr. Heal hired Gayle and

Norm I don't think he understood the political sensitivity of the

situation.

Would you like to call some of the government members back, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Are you listening over the speakers? Would you like to call tern back?

Would you like some of them back? No, I know, but.... You've got me

confused now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

The minister says he's listening, but he's telling me a Social Credit

story. He's listening, but he's talking. He shouldn't say those kinds

of things. Now he's listening. Thank you.

First of all I

want to bring to the minister's attention the kind of thing that

irritates. It borders on a question of privilege in this chamber. It's

not important enough for me to bring a motion of privilege, but I'd

like to bring your attention to the kind of thing that makes us

suspicious of what's going on. I refer you to Government Reports ,

series V, volume 4, published by the Social Credit caucus. It refers to

a statement I made in this House saying: "Mr. Chairman, if the minister

was that concerned about where I was that particular evening he should

have known that I spent the evening with the Provincial Secretary, Mr.

Wolfe; he would have checked." I asked him to unequivocally withdraw

this statement about my

preamble. He was suggesting that I dodged out

of the House and hid somewhere when the vote was going on, when as a

matter of fact I was on my way to Vancouver to attend the same concert

that the minister attended. The minister knows very well that not only

did I attend the concert, but I was courteous enough to offer the

minister a ride back to his car. I took him in my Volvo, which Don

Docksteader sells, not a Chev. I gave the minister a ride, never

thinking this would be a political issue, but I was attacked by a

minister over there saying I'd made a false statement.

What happens? The Social Credit News

publishes that, sends it all over this province, and it's an absolute

lie. It violates my statement privileges, and Social Credit shoves lies

all over this province on a petty little matter like that

[ Page 5271 ]

without

going to the minister and saying: "Mr. Minister, is that true or

false?" The minister didn't lie about this. The minister would have

said: "Yes, the Leader of the Opposition and I were at the same

concert." He would have prevented this from going out. I know the

minister. He's an honorable man. But the minister is now caught in

another embarrassing situation as the politician being responsible for

this lie being fed out by Social Credit. I have to go around this

province saying: "Don't believe in The Social Credit News

because it's lying." Had they checked with the minister, they would

have saved him the embarrassment of having to be caught with a lie.

Having

said that, what are we dealing with? We're dealing with your hiring Mr.

Heal who is not a politician, and he's made some bad political moves —

dumb and stupid political moves. If you want to spend $62,000 on dumb

politicians, they are abounding all over this province and all over in

Social Credit. You don't have to go out and hire someone to make dumb

political decisions. It's caused embarrassment to Social Credit, much

to the glee of the opposition. To correct these dumb decisions, more

dumb decisions are made to further embarrass the government, All it

does is feed the opposition more points. The speech I'm making now

should have been the speech made by Social Credit members to that

minister in cabinet or in caucus. They could say: "We've got to get rid

of Heal." He's the only PR man I know of in the world that we need to

hire a PR man for. We need to hire a PR man for this PR man, because

the dumbest decision he's made is to hire two people from Hollywood for

$14,000 to spruce up the image. Look at the crazy statements that are

made in the newspaper that all the logic and all the reason of good

government intentions can't wash away. How in the world do you wash

away this dumb statement?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you attacking the press again? Shame on you.

MR. BARRETT:

No. I'm not attacking the press. I'm going to come to what your opinion

of the press is later on. You think that Douglas Heal doesn't exist,

that Norman and Gayle don't exist and that the press has made this all

up as a figment of their imagination. You've got a way to deal with

that, and I'll come to that. Mr. Heal explains how you're going to deal

with that.

First of all it's the frizzy hair. One source

says: "Their job is to make sure that Human Resources minister Grace

McCarthy doesn't show up on camera with frizzy hair, that the Premier

is well-shaved and that Industry minister Don Phillips doesn't go off

the deep end and talk too much when he's answering questions." I ask

you this: haven't we got a bad enough image as politicians without you

going out and hiring a PR man who has someone publicly admit that his

role is to make sure that a cabinet minister doesn't appear on

television with frizzy hair, that Phillips doesn't go off the deep end

and that Bennett gets a shave?

Don't get up here in the

House and try to explain it away by saying it's this percentage added

onto that percentage. The fact is that somebody you hired made a dumb

political decision. What are you going to do about it? That's what the

whole debate is about. It's not your fault that this dumb political

decision was made in the first place, but it's your fault that no

corrective action has been taken by the government about this dumb

political decision. What you're saving to all the people of British

Columbia is that it may be dumb. They may not have any sensitivity in

politics, but they're going to improve our image in the long run.

That's just like the northeast coal. It may be dumb. It's going to cost

us a lot of money, but it may make us some money in the long run. Come

on! You've made yourself look like the laughingstock of politics. Who

has to carry the can? The Provincial Secretary has to carry the can

again.

We've had a lot of fun over this. The people are

amused out there and say: "Fourteen grand to get Bill a shave, to tell

Gracie she's got frizzy hair and to tell Phillips not to go off the

deep end." We could have told them that over a cup of coffee. You

didn't have to bring anybody in from Hollywood to tell us the obvious.

For $1,000 we get a report saying Gracie's got frizzy hair on

television, Don goes off the deep end and Bill needs a shave. The guy

who hires somebody to tell us those three self-evident facts gets

$62,000 a year to pluck somebody up to tell us that. If that isn't dumb

politics....

What kind of PR guys are you hiring ? Even if you sold soap, you're in a

position to control the package, the colours, the print and the cost. But you

can't control human beings. When you hire a PR person, you've got to understand

that won't change people into soap. Frizzy hair is frizzy hair, blue

beards are blue beards, and people who go off the deep end are crazy. You can't

do much about it.

How

do you deal with it? There is a therapy: hire a psychiatrist. No one in

Hollywood can handle a deep-end diver. There are more screwballs per

acre loose in Hollywood than in any other place, but they're not so

nuts that if they can get 14 grand to come up and tell you that

somebody's hair is frizzy, somebody needs a shave, and somebody else is

going off the deep end.... And you think you are getting your money's

worth? You think that 62 grand to hire a guy to hire someone else for

14 grand to tell you that three people are looking bad on television

with frizzy hair, blue beard and off the deep end is good value for

money?

Do you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to go all

over B.C., and I might have my tie askew and a PR man might get upset,

or I might have my jacket open, but I will stand up in front of an

audience and tell them: "Do you know what those screwballs are doing

down in Victoria? They're spending 14 grand to tell you that somebody's

got a blue beard, someone else is goinh off the deep end, and another

one's got frizzy hair." They're not going to be looking at my tie

askew; they're going to be making a political decision that comes to

haunt Social Credit.

What is most revealing about the

decision to hire Heal and keep him after this dumb decision to hire

Norman and Gayle or whoever the hell it is — excuse me, whoever the

heck it is.... Now we've got to clean that up. A PR man would keep you

away from talking about Dante's home. A PR man would say: "Oh. that hot

place down below." If you say it right and have the right impression on

camera, people won't be frightened about their choice of hereafter.

Hell is probably populated by more PR men per capita than by any other

kind of people. Who is putting you to hell here on earth? The advice of

these PR men. Why should you be in this seat taking this heat right

now? The only reason you are taking the heat is the dumb decision of PR

people who have been hired. Who told you to hire them? Look here, every

newspaper in this province is going to carry the story today about the

member telling you about Bela Lugosi. Ed Wynn, Dracula and everybody

else over there. You leave them a natural opening to go in and hammer

the slats out of you, and you still haven't fired Heal and Norm and

Gayle.

[ Page 5272 ]

want to tell you that the best thing you've ever done for the New

Democratic Party was to hire Doug Heal. He is a secret agent for the

New Democratic Party, who is being paid for by the taxpayers at

$62,500. Don't think that won't show up at a Social Credit meeting as

an explanation: "We didn't make the mistake in hiring a PR person; we

made a mistake in hiring a secret NDP member, who is deliberately

sabotaging the government by the kinds of decisions he's making." It's

probably the explanation that is now being given to every Social Credit

cell in the province. Every little teacup party and every little

meeting of the women's auxiliary where they want to legalize

prostitution can now have Heal draw up the television commercial on why

we should accept legalized prostitution, played by not the real thing

but hired actors in illicit sex scenes with the little black cat

walking across.

I can't believe the stupidity of this

government. It's unbelievable stupidity. They think that it's all

right. Fourteen grand for Norm and Gayle to come up say that the

Premier needs a shave, Gracie needs to comb her hair and Phillips

should shut up before he goes off the deep end. What kind of utter

nonsense are you trying to justify? What kind of irrational argument

are you giving to justify that decision by saying, oh, it's under this

vote or it's under that vote, and everything else. It's dumb. There are

two million people out there who pay taxes. They never paid their taxes

with the idea that when they buy bread, butter and milk and pay their

rent they're paying 14 grand for Gayle and Norm to tell the Premier to

take a shave, for Phillips not to go off the deep end, and for Gracie

to clean up her frizzy hair.

Don't you think that people

think out there, that they talk over kitchen tables about what's going

on in government? Do you think they're stupid out there? Don't you

think that in beer parlours and in hairdresser shops they're all

laughing about Mr. Heal and Gayle and Norman and the next episode of

"Soap" that the British Columbia government brings you? "Life in

Victoria, " with Norm and Gayle, blue beard, deep end and frizzy hair

as the main characters.

Now, come on, Mr. Minister, have

enough sense to can these people, because they've already shown that

they're inadequate. They've got you in a jam within 15 or 20 days of

being hired. If you don't can them, then we will continue the secret

operation we've got going of encouraging Mr. Heal to make the kinds of

decisions he's made to this point. We encourage Mr. Heal to continue to

show the wisdom and the political savvy of hiring Gayle and Norman, in

the continuing saga of blue beard, frizzy hair and deep end, brought to

you every night by Victoria Productions.

What is the most

dangerous part of this, other than the fun and the ridicule that the

government's going through? The minister actually believes one part of

what he said. I quote back to him....

MR. LAUK: Here comes Mr. Science.

MR. BARRETT:

Nothing can improve his image. I noticed that you hired Heal for

$62,000 and Norm and what's her name for $14,000. Nothing could improve

the image of a guy who punches a cameraman. What are you going to do

about him? What are you going to do to improve his image of going out

there and expressing violence by punching out cameramen and then coming

into the House with boxing gloves on as if its a big joke?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Science turns Clown.

MR. BARRETT:

Yeah, a clown. What are we going to get for our $62,000? Give him the

impossible problem of dealing with that minister's image. Let's see

what he comes up with. Maybe we'll get three cameramen. We'll make it

three on one and we'll have a three-ring circus. He'll punch out three

cameramen. The stupidity and the asinine behaviour of this government

is what is at question.

I want to read back the words you

just said as I took them down. I may be incorrect. About the media

centre you said: "There's no intention to change its function." Do you

believe that, Mr. Minister? Well, Mr. Minister, Mr. Heal's done it to

you again. This is what Mr. Heal says about the media centre: "Heal

does not reject the possibility that someone like Industry Minister Don

Phillips may use the facilities to describe aspects of the northeast

coal deal." Listen to this. This is what your political advice is — for

$62,000 a year.

I have to chuckle about this. Would that

thine enemies wrote a book; they couldn't do a better job than Heal is

doing for me. You haven't even got the sensitivity to do anything about

it. This is what he says. He may be a fine gentleman. He may even be

here, for all I know, getting free advice that politics is not like

selling soap. There are human beings around and they pay tax money.

"When a ministry is presenting a new initiative, it will be able to

have videotaped material to hand out to the media, just as it has

printed material." On the surface that sounds logical to somebody who

hasn't been involved in politics. Instead of interviewing the minister,

you just hand out cassettes in the corridor. Do you know how stupid

that is? What you will have is cameramen taking pictures of the

cassettes being handed out and the person handing out the cassettes

running away from reporters who want to ask questions. That will go on

television at night, showing a bureaucrat handing out videotapes and

the minister lurking around the comer, hiding and saying: "Don't ask me

questions. It's already put on the videotape."

Doesn't

anybody over there think of step two or step three about politics?

Isn't there anybody with a political brain in his head over there to

understand that the media asks questions about printed handouts? The

media doesn't take a printed handout and say: "This is what I was

handed by the minister today, and this is what he said. 'I am good and

they are bad, and this will make us all happy.'"

The

simplistic stupidity of an attitude that says that handing out video

cassette tapes is the same as handing out a news release is a

demonstration, Mr. Minister, that either you don't know what you're

doing when you're hiring people, or you intend to manage the news. If

you intend to manage the news, let's take a look at some of the reasons

why. We come back to image. When the press asks the Premier questions,

he is seen scuttling down the hallway, running away from cameras. That

is not good for the Premier's image. Is that not right, class? Does

everybody agree that when the camera's on the Premier and he's asked a

question and he turns around and scuttles down the hallway with a

kamikaze thing on his head, it's not good for his image?

Okay.

So we agree that a Premier running away from cameras is a bad scene.

What are we going to have instead? Can you not see it now? Around goes

the revolving door. Out goes the Premier after having made a statement

in the House, the reporters stand there with a camera on him and they

say: "Mr. Premier, would you please give us an explanation about your

important statement about building a bridge at Oshkosh?" He says,

"Certainly," and hands out a pocketful of videotapes. They say: "We'd

like to ask you a question on

[ Page 5273 ]

it." He says: "It's all on the tape, my friend. Just play the tape."

What

kind of nonsense are we getting into? The minister says that there is

no change in the media centre, and Heal says that they're going to hand

out videotape clips on news items. There may be reporters out there who

want to ask questions and who have their own cameras. Maybe they want

to put the Premier on camera. But oh, no, the system is going to be

that we're going to hand out pretaped interviews. We'll have edited

interviews. Instead of the give and take of corridor press conferences,

or the give and take of debate in this House, we're going to have:

"Take one. Take two. Take three."

I can just see take one of

the Premier's speech on, "We're going to build a bridge in Oshkosh."

Take one is: "We're going to build a bridge in Oshkosh. Remember,

smile!"

" Mmm!"

"No, we've got to take it again. All right. One, two, three let's start again. Smile!"

"Mmm! We're gonna build a bridge in Oshkosh."

"Don't smile. Three. Take a shave and try it again."

"We're — mmm! — gonna — mmm! — build a mmm! — bridge — mmm! — in Oshkosh."

You

know, that kind of stupidity is what we're seeing now. Somebody is

whispering over to the Premier when the camera's on — when they've

finally got him in the corner — and they say, "Smile," and he remembers

and the light goes on — ding! — and he goes "ching," and then he goes

back to what he's saying. Now all of that spontaneity that makes us

love the Premier is going to be edited out. We will never see again one

of his spontaneous smiles. We will never again see him fleet-footing it

down the hallway. We will never again get to see that lovable human

being, who was known as the Premier, looking in the camera and saying:

"Not now, my friend. Don't answer. You've heard this. Aargh, haarg."

From now on, it's going to be, "I love you truly," brought to you by

Douglas Heal, and we're going to pay for it! And they actually think

it's going to sell. The poor minister thinks he's selling cars.

You

know, you don't need this. There's an old expression, put in the

vernacular: "You need this like a hole in the head." What are you doing

with Heal and Norman and Gayle and this 14 grand running around after

images? You're not bad, Mr. Minister. You're not a crook; you're a nice

guy. Why are you impaling yourself on this kind of nonsense? Because

there is a deep suspicion out there about Social Credit, Mr. Minister.

I read in the paper where you say you worry about how you're doing in

the polls. Why are you down? Why don't people love you? Why are you

losing votes? Have you ever stopped to think that people don't believe

you anymore? Have you stopped to understand that when you make a

statement and it's false, and you play dirty tricks, the public gets an

impression that you don't deserve their vote? After the public gets the

impression that you don't deserve their vote, what do you do? You go

out and hire a guy for 62 grand who hires two Hollywood image-makers to

dust up Gracie's hair, to stop Phillips from going off the deep end and

for Bill to have a shave.

That's not the problem, Mr.

Minister. People want low-cost housing, they want low interest rates,

they want someone to fight inflation, they want to be able to buy food

for the table out there, Mr. Minister, and that's what they expect

governments to do. They want someone in here with a voice, a will and a

desire to see to it that if a young couple wants to go and buy a home,

they can go and buy a home; someone to say that this is a good project

backed up with facts; someone to come in here and say that if a young

couple wants to borrow money to buy a car, they don't face 19 and 20

percent interest rates. What has Social Credit come to? What would

Major Douglas do if he were alive today? I tell you what would happen

to Major Douglas if he were alive today. Doug Heal would get him in the

corner, tell him to change his uniform and brush his teeth and not to

talk about funny money ever again.

You are the cause of this

government's destruction, because you are now institutionalizing the

stupidity of the lack of ethics and morality in dealing up front with

people. You're not going to back off the Heal decision. You're not

going to back off the "Norm and Gayle" decision. You've got a locked-in

mentality that allows you to look only at problems on the surface — all

superficial. And the whole idea is that somehow you're going to clean

it all up by hiring a PR man and some image-builders. What is the truth

of what we're talking about? Do you want to trade truths? It's your

opinion that the comptroller-general will let you do this. What my

colleague the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was talking about

is this simple truth: you're spending $14,000 of somebody's money —

some old-age pensioner, somebody welfare, some small businessman, some

retired millionaire — to hire Norm and Gayle to tell Grace not to have

frizzy hair on television, to tell Don Phillips not to go off the deep

end and to tell Bill to take a shave. Come on, Mr. Minister, who are

you trying to kid? Deep down in your gut, you know better than this.

But

the worst thing is not what Heal is advising; the worst thing is not

who he is hiring. The worst thing is that you, Mr. Minister, can't pull

yourself together and say: "Enough of this nonsense. Let's just tell

without any actors, without any image and anything else." What are you

afraid of? Are you afraid of facing the cameras and looking the people

of British Columbia in the eye and saving: "Don't worry about me, I

can't take a shave too well, ignore my frizzy hair, and ignore my

friend who goes off the deep end — this is what we're doing for you"?

That's all people want to hear. People are not stupid. People are not

out there to be manipulated, managed, lied to or fooled around with on

the basis of image; people are decent, sensible individuals who

understand that government is complex and that it has to make difficult

decisions. All they want is some basic honesty around those decisions

and to know why those decisions are made. They don't need the Gayles,

the Normans and the image-makers.

The worst sin that's been

committed is not the sin of Mr. Heal's professionalism, not the sin of

omission of his political sensitivity; the sin that's committed is that

this government doesn't understand how stupid they've been. There are

backbenchers who go down over coffee and grumble: "Why is the cabinet

putting us in jeopardy of losing our seats?" As I understand it, there

are cabinet ministers who haven't got quite up to the point of saying

in cabinet: "Why is the government putting us through this meat

grinder?" There are cabinet ministers who have more knowledge of PR in

their elbow than all you can buy, because they've been through

politics. But the government is locked in and rigid on this course of

attempting to manipulate people. More than any thing else, Mr.

Chairman, why I support this amendment is that I am opposed to any

conscious, deliberate attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

We're politicians — warts and all. When the day comes that the PR men

and flacks

[ Page 5274 ]

and

image-makers are the ones who are to tell the people what we're like,

that's the day we begin to lose the essence of British parliamentary

democracy.

I want to leave it with this, Mr. Chairman: the

$62,000 would have been better spent by having television cameras in

here recording me and my gesticulations and all the criticism that

every Hollywood hack would have about the way I speak and everything

else, and putting the camera on the Premier at the same time. I judge

that the people of British Columbia have sense enough to make up their

own minds about what's real and what's phony. They don't need to spend

$62,000 of taxpayers' money and $14,000 worth of Hollywood make-up

artists to tell us what's phony. Don't insult us. Can these people. Get

back to the truth and trust people; they'll make their own decisions

based on facts.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman,

yesterday I had occasion to direct some remarks at the opposition

members, when they wished to reduce one of the important votes in this

Legislature having to do with the flow of information. During the

course of those remarks I drew attention to the fact that the New

Democratic Party opposition, including the leader who now leaves this

chamber as he always does, never listening to arguments in debate....

The point was made that if it did not come to paying off the special

interest groups — be they union leaders, doctors, lawyers, teachers or

public relations men.... There is no concept over there of

responsibility in government of spending money to bring in capable

people to provide the vital functions of government instead of spending

millions on payoffs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to describe

to you what went on during the New Democratic Party years in office,

when it came to wasting the public's money in this area of endeavour. I

seem to remember a fantastic new business that was started in British

Columbia at public expense, once the New Democratic Party took office.

I refer, of course, to the man who performed the political chores for

the government — the image-making for the Leader of the Opposition,

difficult as that job was. It was not the kind of solid, dispassionate

information services that come from proper government information

service, but political advertising that was dispensed through the media

of British Columbia, where the payoff was all under the table — Manny

Dunsky.

MR. HOWARD: That's a bold-faced lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, did you ever hear of that advertising agency in British

Columbia before the political payoff from the NDP came? No, sir, they

weren't present in British Columbia. Go and look in the telephone books

to see if there was any office here. But once the NDP came into

office.... Listen to these figures. What was the government payout to

the Manny Dunsky advertising agency in 1971-72? It was zero dollars.

They didn't even exist in British Columbia. But shortly after the NDP

came to office in 1972-73, $119,654 of public money went to the Manny

Dunsky advertising agency. What for?

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I suppose it is a good question with you over

there. That's wasting public money. There were political payoffs to advertising

agencies who came in. It was not visible, not stand up and not in Public Accounts :

no, sir, that was under-the-table advertising money handed to their agency.

What happened…?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. One moment please. There are quite a few

interruptions going on, some of which the Chair is finding

unparliamentary. I will ask all members to please not interrupt the

member who is on his feet.

HON. MR. McGEER: I should hope not, Mr. Chairman. I should have thought they'd want to listen to this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And, of course, any imputation of a false statement made by another member is unparliamentary and would have to be withdrawn.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm just taking my figures out of the sums of public money which appear in the line items at the back of Public Accounts .

MR. HALL: That's under the table, is it?

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure, what goes as profits to them is under the table.

The next year it was $738,477. That's approximately a four-fold increase in one year.

You

haven't heard anything yet. What happened the next year? They paid

$2,063,476 to the Manny Dunsky advertising agency. It's growing by

leaps and bounds. Now it's nearly $200,000 a month. The next year was

1975-76. Fortunately this haemorrhage of public funds was arrested and

that year Manny Dunsky only got $1,497,737 from the public treasury of

British Columbia. The way I add it up, it cost the public of British

Columbia $4,419,344 in public relations payoffs from the New Democratic

Party. That's a pretty hefty sum.

What does the Leader of

the Opposition have to say about that? How many of the contracts making

up this $4,419,344 ever went to public tender? I can answer that

question, because I was in the opposition then: zero.

That's

what happens when you don't have adequate information officers in

government. That's what happens when you go to your political friends.

The Leader of the Opposition complains about $14,000 when his bill for

public relations people when he was in office here was $4.4 million in

three years. Think what it would have been if they'd been in for

another term in office. What would it have been — $6 million, $8

million, $10 million? Where would you have stopped and said: "That's

enough"?

Mr. Chairman, far better, with the information

services in this province of British Columbia that you have civil

servants under the discipline of government, where the information

services and the tasks they undertake can be seen by the press and

evaluated by the public. But let's not have the kind of disgraceful

expenditure of public funds that took place for three years under the

New Democratic Party — $4.4 million.

Never in the history of

this province has there been such a disgraceful display of expenditure

of public funds in advertising. I'm not going to suggest that Dunsky

pocketed all $4.4 million, because some of that went for taking out

advertising in the newspapers and on the radio. His profits probably

[ Page

5275 ]

weren't more than 20 percent of that. He probably didn't take more than $800,000 home during that period of time.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's not that I want to correct the

speech of the member, but what the member is doing is libeling a firm

that was in business in this province and is still in business in this

country. He is libeling them. I challenge the minister to say the kind

of things that he's said in here today out in the hall. He would be

sued. Mr. Chairman, you cannot say in this House something that you're

going to be sued for if you say it out there. That's what he's doing,

He is using this House, where we cannot be sued, to smear and to libel.

It's the act of a coward.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will all hon. members please take their seats. I'm sure

all members realize that when they rise in committee to introduce a

point of order, they should cite the point of order. I'm sure all

members also realize that members are allowed to debate in committee

and to enter the debate on a particular vote as many times as they

wish. Every member has the opportunity to debate.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA:

I'd like to ask you, as Chairman, why you have not not brought this

member to order and why you have let him suggest that when we were in

government money was paid under the table to an advertising firm. You

never brought him to order. Three times he said it and you never

brought him to order. If anybody on this side of the House suggested

anything like that, we'd be brought to order, and rather sharply.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, every member of this House is responsible for his own

statements. The Chair is asked to intervene when a member is speaking

in an unparliamentary fashion about another member of this assembly or

is in any other way abusing the rules of the House. The member who was

speaking in debate is clearly responsible for his own statements and

the Chair cannot intervene.

MR. LEA: On the same

point of order, the minister has accused the comptroller-general of

this province of allowing money to be paid under the table under the

guise of legitimate government spending. Who is going to call him to

order? For all you know, Mr. Chairman, by the time he finishes his

speech some member of the press gallery could go out and report that

the comptroller-general of the government of those years actually

allowed money to be paid under the table. That's what this member is

saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, in a debate in

Committee of Supply of this House many civil servants are criticized

for their actions. Many people are mentioned in debate. The item which

is particularly unparliamentary is imputing an improper motive to

another hon. member of this House. The Chair did not hear the hon.

minister impute.... Did the minister impute improper motive to another

member of this House?

HON. MR. McGEER: Not to another member of this House, Mr. Chairman.

I'm merely saying how it was done in those years. I would not impute anything

to the NDP that probably isn't done by the NDP all over Canada. I'll

tell you this, if I may: if what I said is wrong, let the member say that the

amounts paid to Manny Dunsky that appeared in Public Accounts were incorrect.

MR. LEA: Nobody: said that.

HON. MR. McGEER:

If all of this was as it should be, then let them tell of one contract

that Manny Dunsky bid on. When did it ever go out to tender? It never

went out to tender. All the NDP ever did was to say: "Here's a chance

to shovel a little more to Manny Dunsky, and put it on the public

bill." That's what happened.

Mr. Chairman. you have

legitimate handling of advertising money when it goes to tender, just

like a highway contract. Imagine the criticism that would come to

government if we were to take every paving contract in British Columbia

and give it to one firm. What would you have to say about that? That's

what took place. It's exactly the same. For years in government every

single job went to one advertising agency. Why? Why were there no

tenders? Why did it always go to one? Let the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) answer that question if what I've said is wrong,

MR. COCKE: It is wrong!

HON. MR. McGEER:

Well, how is it that suddenly a firm that wan't in existence in British

Columbia in 1972 took $4.4 million from the public purse in three

years? How do you account for that?

MR. KEMPF: Where did it go in 1976?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Well, I'll tell you what it cost in 1976 — $6,486. All I'm trying to

say is that if the New Democratic Party really wanted to save public

funds, if they really wanted good information in Government, if they

really wanted legitimate handling of information services, then what

they should be doing in this House is repenting their days in office

and supporting the kinds of measures the Provincial Secretary has

taken. That would be the appropriate way to end in the future the sort

of thing that characterized the past, when the NDP were in office.

Yes,

I suppose you would go back to the old days — bring Manny Dunsky back

here. Heaven knows what he'd act in the way of millions of dollars out

of the public purse. If that were ever to happen. Because that's the

policy of the Leader of the Opposition. Manny Dunsky was his pal:

that's how it was done. Oh, those were beautiful ads, those great big

ones that were taken on the insurance. Do you remember that? Big

pictures of Mr. Barrett, then Premier of British Columbia, all done

with the slick style that goes with those eastern advertising agencies.

Yes, sir, that's what we had in the province of British Columbia, but

you don't see it now. That's all gone. No more conning the public with

advertising $25 insurance claims. That's what Manny Dunsky started off

with. Do you call that legitimate advertising? That's what

characterized the NDP in office. That's what you did.

I tell

you. Mr. Chairman, the New Democratic Party should be withdrawing this

amendment in embarrassment. They should be asking forgiveness for their

time in office, because they seek power again.

[ Page 5276 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER:

That's my constituent over there — from Burnaby-Edmonds, is it? — the

one who promised she was going to live in her constituency but

continues to be a bad representative of mine. When you were sitting

over on this side of the House, you may not have thought that those

were improper actions, but I can tell you that we did, Madam Member,

and so did the public of British Columbia. That's why they turned them

out in '75 and kept them out in '79. That's why they knew what would

happen in 1933 and in 1937…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...and in 1941 and in 1945 and in 1949 and in 1952. Shall I go on, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please don't, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. I think it's about time we reviewed the

fact that there is an amendment before us that vote 164 be reduced to

the amount of $4.50. It would be refreshing to have debate return more

specifically to the amendment presently before us.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, nothing could be more specific and to the point than the

difference in style and policy of the New Democratic Party, whether in

opposition or in government, and Social Credit. When they were in

office they stood for a patronage system: bring in your advertising

agency, shovel the public money at them and get back the payoff in free

public relations. Except the real cost runs into millions. Why does it

run into millions? Because none of the advertising contracts went out

to tender. It's the same sort of thing as taking bridges, highways,

schools or any public endeavour and passing it out to one person

without it ever going to tender.

That's the NDP style. Yet

they criticize moves to bring on proper government servants in the

civil service, as they should be, to undertake the necessary

information services of government without the kind of slick eastern

handling that characterized those $25 insurance advertisements that

were the hallmark of the NDP years in office.

This is an unworthy amendment and I, for one, reject it.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy listening to the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, particularly now as we come down to the twilight

of his political career. We should listen to these speeches with a

great deal of interest, as they do contain among them parts and parcels

of his past glories, his current troubles and his current

imperfections. Some of his imperfections at the moment, of course, are

to do with lapses of memory. In fact they would lead us, if we listened

carefully to the last contribution, to believing that what he told us

in some way matched with the facts. Such is not the case by any stretch

of the imagination. I have heard little in the way of fiction in this

House that would match it.

Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by telling you that for years upon years one advertising

agency carried the business of the provincial government in British Columbia

and carried the business solely. That was Lovick Agencies. We all know why Lovick

Agencies carried the business for the party of W.A.C. Bennett, the party that

the previous speaker clasped to his bosom in a fit of ambition one day when

he crossed the floor from this side to the other.

Secondly,

when we became the government we didn't have one advertising agency, we

had several. Let me mention a number: Dunsky; Walker Riggs; Gordon

Rowntree & Co.; Ross & Anthony.

MS. BROWN: You don't want to hear the truth.

MR. HALL:

He doesn't want to listen to those names because, of course, he just

likes to talk. That member was on the public accounts committee. Mr.

Chairman, you'd be surprised, indeed horrified, to know that even

though the member used the words "under the table" with all the

connotations that has, he didn't ask one single question in Public

Accounts. He didn't ask for one voucher in Public Accounts, during the

time that he was on the public accounts committee when we were

government, to look for those under-the-counter payments. He dared to

stand up and say that.

Let me say parenthetically that when

any member stands up and accuses a previous government of

under-the-counter payments, the Chairman of the committee should do

something about it right away and not wait for a member to stand up,

asking for a member to withdraw. Otherwise debate will get untidy.

Next we deal with the amounts of money as put forward in Public Accounts ,

all certified by the comptroller- general, all certified correct by

audit, every one passed by this House, every one voted on by this

House. This member tries to suggest that they went to the advertising

agencies themselves, when we all know in actual fact that all of those

dollars, less the normal commercial percentage, went to such journals

as the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province , the

dailies and weeklies of the province of British Columbia, plus the

radio stations, as was the case with Lovick and as is the case with

every advertising agency that is dealt with today. That member knows

it, but he tries to make a political speech. He tries to restore the

morale, the flagging spirits of the treasury benches, deserted though

they are after suffering a bad day in the House.

As I say,

we should listen to these final, dwindling, few speeches of the member

for Vancouver–Point Grey as he reaches the end of his political career,

because they will be remembered as poor imitations of a Liberal that

stood on this side. When I say that let me tell you that it doesn't sit

too well with me for a Liberal to give me a lesson in handling

advertising agencies. No, sir, not a Liberal. I'll take it from some

people, but not a Liberal.

The fact of the matter is that

the moneys that went to an advertising agency, whether it was Ross and

Anthony, who worked for my colleague the Minister of Health in his

department; Walker Riggs, who worked for me when I was Provincial

Secretary; Gordon Rowntree, who worked for me in my capacity looking

after the Public Service Commission; or whether it was a whole host of

advertising agencies that were used, went to pay bills that dealt with

the purchase of space or time. For that member to suggest that money

went — as he used those expressions — in the form of "public funds to

that agency" and "payoffs" and so on is not only mischievous but

misleading.

Let me deal with the question of bids. By his own statement one of the advertising agents used between 1972 and

[ Page

5277 ]

1975 only got $6,000 in 1975. I wonder if the

minister could tell me whether he was asked to bid on government

business in 1976. This minister tries to tell us that everything was

open and that they asked all advertising agencies to bid on work for

government communications in 1976. Could he tell me whether Dunsky

Advertising was asked to bid on that work? I bet you he can't give me

the answer.

All I'm saying is that we've just been treated

to a speech that was inaccurate, inflammatory, mostly out of order and

needed correcting. I trust that I've now done that.

HON. MR. McGEER: I wonder if the House would permit me to table a document.

MR. HALL: No. Afterwards.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Well, I just thought the House and the public might be interested. Not

everybody in British Columbia, and I must include myself in this,

subscribes to the Democrat , but I've got an advertisement here from the Democrat

of December 1974. It's a large advertisement as is not taken by

Rowntree, Ross and Co. or Walker Riggs. No, no, it was not by any of

these firms that competed so savagely for government business under the

NDP. This was bought by Dunsky Advertising Ltd. Guess what it says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing.

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, it should have said nothing, but it says instead: "This brief pause

in the advertising is brought to you with our compliments." Mr.

Chairman, you know who wants to get back on the gravy train.

MS. BROWN: That was in 1974.

HON. MR. McGEER: Absolutely. This brief pause is bought by Dunsky Advertising. Yes, that's business for them.

With

the permission of the House I'll just table this advertisement of

Dunsky Advertising in the Democrat to give you some flavour of that

special relationship which existed between this advertising company

that got $4.4 million and the New Democratic Party in just over three

years in office. It's an amazing, competitive record.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order. If the minister can't be honest he should keep his mouth shut.

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

MR. COCKE: All right, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: The minister gets up and says that Dunsky got $4 million. That is an out-and-out untruth.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Members in this House must

take responsibility for what they say. It is impossible for a member to ask

the Chair to bring another member to order on something he's said of which

the Chair has no knowledge. While the Chair can appreciate the concern of members

for what another member might say, it is beyond the competence of the Chair

to rule on whether any member is being, factual or otherwise in the House.

MR. LEA:

Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're coming to you from

the B.C. Legislature, if you've just tuned in. We're discussing in the

House today, as I look down on the chamber, the estimates of the

Provincial Secretary. The debate has been going on rather hot and

furious here this afternoon. The opposition has been accusing the

government of spending taxpayers' money for strictly partisan purposes,

in hiring two people to come up from Hollywood to try to improve the

government's image. The government, of course, is fighting back,

They're not going to be caught napping on this. The Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has just

been passed a message, brought to him by the chairman of the Social

Credit caucus. the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). The

member for Central Fraser Valley is rather quick. He ran out of the

House just a few moments ago and returned with a piece of damning

evidence that the minister grasped and read into the record of the

House. What that piece of evidence was, ladies and gentlemen, was an

advertisement placed in the Democrat

— that's one of the propaganda organs of the NDP — and that

advertisement was placed there by Dunsky Advertising. The minister, of

course, knows that this is going to be like a harpoon to the NDP as

they stand there trying to make their point against this little

minister over there.

We've gone to the ridiculous, Mr. Chairman.

MR. RITCHIE: That's for sure.

MR. LEA: That's for sure. You are a good sleuth but a lousy politician.

What

we in the opposition are trying to do here in the House is point out

that in our opinion — and we're hoping that the people of this province

agree with us; sometimes they do, sometimes they don't — the government

is spending taxpayers' money in a manner that's not acceptable, we

suspect, to the people of this province — certainly not to us. We

suspect it's not acceptable to the people, if they get the story. If

the people learn the facts surrounding the subject we're talking about

through the media, then we're hopeful that the objective media.... And

in a democracy we have to hope that the media covering the affairs of

state is an objective organ in our society. It's the only hope we have.

The only hope of the people of this province or of any other democracy

is that there is a free press; otherwise, what they receive has to be

labelled propaganda. whether it's from this party or any other

political party.

Let's just suppose that we all in our

wisdom in this Legislature decided that the media was doing a lousy

job, and saw it as our duty to do away with the media through

legislation. Then the people would get the truth, wouldn't they? Then

the people would know the real truth, the facts. What the government

can’t seem to understand is that we live in a very frail system.

Democracy isn't very old in world history. We're fledglings. We're sort

of stumbling our way through on a theory which, in many respects, is

yet to be proved — that democracy is the best way for us to go. I

believe that everyone in this House believes that. The thought of

living under any other system of government would, I think, be

repugnant to us all. We have our job to do as legislators. Part of that

job is to be partisan and to express our own point of view. But give

any one of us the chance and the opportunity to

[ Page 5278 ]

only

express our own opinions and to stop the opinions of others, then the

danger is there. We are human and we are frail. We have to have a

time-honoured structure that not only protects us from others but

protects us from ourselves, because we can all fall into the trap cf

thinking that we know better and that the truth that we tell is the

only truth and the only information that should reach the ears of our

constituencies.

I can see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) shaking his head in wonderment at the words I speak. We have

to remember that before he was in politics that very member wrote to

all political parties except the New Democratic Party, as is his right

and choice, suggesting that the province had to get rid of the

socio-communists. An educated person would know that that statement is

absolutely silly. Thank God for the free press.

What the

government is saying.... I saw it the other night on television. When

questioned about why the government is at 20 percent in the Gallup

poll, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) said:

"It's the fault of the media. The media aren't telling the story of

what we're all about. The media in some way are distorting the kind of

things that we're doing and the reporting of those things so that the

people have turned against us."

In some ways I suppose

that's true. The people have turned against the government. I don't

recall a government ever being so low on the polls. We have to ask

ourselves why. Is it the media indeed? Are the media the culprits? Is

it the media that have made the Social Credit Party, as government,

unpopular, or is it the actions or the lack of action of the government

in power? I served in the government preceding this. As much as we

could meet each other in the corridors — my colleagues and I - and go

into caucus, wail, gnash, bite our fingernails and talk about the dirty

media doing us in.... All governments do it.

This is an

important thing that we're talking about. We're talking about the

freedom of the press. We're talking about an objective agency telling

people what goes on in this House and in government, as opposed to

government itself being the messenger and the message. An important,

philosophical question is what we're talking about in this House now.

There's fun because we've brought in the Hollywood people and we've

given ministers names; all of these things have come into the

discussion. Life would be pretty dry and drab if we couldn't have a bit

of fun with even the most important of issues. But this is an important

discussion. It's possibly one of the most important discussions that

we're going to have in this Legislature in this session, or perhaps all

of the sessions that I've witnessed in here, because we're talking

about the system that makes us free. We're talking about the kind of

life that we want to lead in this country and in this province.

have government ministers saying that they're low on the polls through

the media's fault. God knows, the Social Credit aren't the only people

who've made that statement over the years. Every political party in

disfavour at the moment uses the hackneyed old expression: "The media

are doing us in." We used it. We were a new government. It was the

first time our party had been in government. We did make some errors

when we were in government. We made lots of them.

I suppose

that the only thing any political party can honestly promise the public

is that they'll make more errors. Let's just hope that they're honest

errors and not the kind of errors that we've seen this government make

in terms of the dirty tricks. I don't think we'll ever again see — I

hope we don't — that kind of thing in this province. I suppose our

history would show us that it's happened before. I just hope that

history doesn't repeat itself again.

What sort of action can

a government take when, as they put it, their image is down? They hire

a public relations man. I think that first of all we have to ask

ourselves whether the public relations people of our country are the

proper people to be carrying the message of the democratic system.

We're not selling soap. We're not selling a commodity. We're selling

ideas. We're selling philosophy. We have to ask ourselves if there is

room in our democratic process for all of the flash and razzle-dazzle

of the public relations field.

I'm not saying that the

public relations field isn't a necessary or desirable part of our

society, in its place. What we do have to ask, though, is whether the

public relations field as we know it has a proper place within the

government and democratic structure. My feeling is no. There is not a

place for the slick kind of PR that we know exists out there, as some

people say, in the real world. This world is terribly real. There isn't

one decision made here that doesn't affect somebody intimately and

personally. There isn't anything that a person in this province can do

that hasn't been affected in some way by a decision made by us and

those who have preceded us here. To give it a slick public relations

approach, I think, is an incorrect way to go. I think most people in

this province would agree that it's not the way to go.

other members have pointed out, the government is not in trouble

because of its image; it has an image problem because of its behaviour

and the policies it has enunciated and carried out. There is no doubt

that the budget that was brought in not too long ago had some kind of

effect on everyone in the province. I suppose there are some who

thought it was a good budget; there are others who think it is a bad

budget. But surely the information surrounding that budget should only

go to the people in two ways: through the public media and the