1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6561 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 60: minister's office –– 6561

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Cocke

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

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

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

didn't want to delay the progress of the House; nevertheless, it's

always a pleasure for me to have the opportunity of speaking on the

Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

My ministry offers a broad and diverse range of programs to the

general public and to the government itself. In administering the

programs and services in both these areas, we have striven for greater

degrees of administrative efficiency in order to free up funds that can

be redirected to public programs. The amalgamation of the staff

headquarters, for instance, has resulted in savings of hundreds of

thousands of dollars, to be spent on public programs such as Provincial

Museum exhibits. The worldwide recession, from which we are only now

beginning to emerge, has put enormous pressure on our recreational,

sport, cultural and historic resources programs. That has put the onus

on us all to get greater productivity at less cost to the taxpayers.

It is a matter of considerable satisfaction to me that we have been

able to do just that in this ministry. At a time when cultural

organizations throughout the western world have suffered setbacks due

to sagging economies, we in British Columbia have been able to provide

a consistent level of funding to the arts. Although we have not been

able to increase grants over the last couple of years, we have not had

to cut them back.

I am pleased to announce that this year we are in a position to

provide, through lottery funds, a modest increase in core funding for

cultural and sport-related activities. While the overall administrative

costs of the cultural services branch will drop again this year by 3

percent, the amount of money flowing to the arts community by way of

grants administered by that branch this year will stand at

approximately $6.7 million, an increase of $300,000 over last year.

For the arts to thrive, they must receive adequate support from all

sectors of society — general public, business and all levels of

government. If any one source fails to contribute its fair share, the

burden on other sectors is increased and the arts invariably suffer.

Unfortunately, this is happening in some parts of British Columbia, and

most noticeably in our capital city of Victoria, where the municipal

government is consistently underfunding the city's cultural attractions.

The Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, for instance, receives from the city the

lowest per capita grant in Canada, and the lowest on a percentage basis of any

gallery in British Columbia. The Pacific Opera Association, a remarkable opera

company for a city of this size, paid $23,000 for the use of the civic-owned

McPherson Playhouse last year, but received only $12,000 in funding from the

city.

The annual deficit of the Bastion Theatre equals the difference

between its annual grant from the city and the amount it has to pay the

city in rent. The list goes on. But the point that needs to be made is

that cultural attractions are a major contributor to the quality of

life in British Columbia and a proven draw for tourists, which makes

them doubly important for a city like Victoria. I think it is clearly

time that the city of Victoria got its act together and increased its

funding levels to reflect the importance of the arts in British

Columbia's capital city. In this fiscal year we're developing a program

to assist cultural and sports organizations in attracting to our

province events which yield economic benefits to the community that

hosts them.

Recently the Premier announced that the 1986 B.C. Festival of the

Arts will be held in Prince George. The Festival of the Arts is a

unique opportunity for artists to learn together through competitions,

instruction and exposure to audiences. The festival also serves to

increase public awareness of the role and the value of art in our

society. The first B.C. Festival of the Arts was held in Kamloops in

1982. Penticton hosted the event in 1984. In addition to the cultural

benefits of the festival, the businesses in Prince George will feel the

positive impact of having between 1,500 to 2,000 visitors early in

their tourist season.

A few hundred feet away from this chamber is one of the finest

museums in the world. The B.C. Provincial Museum is a major tourist

attraction and a source of great pride for all British Columbians, not

only those who live in Victoria. This year we'll be adding a new

exhibit, to be opened to the public in 1986, which incidentally is the

100th anniversary of the museum. The exhibit, "Open Oceans," will be a

spectacular addition to the museum, which, like all the museum's

exhibits, will educate while it entertains millions of visitors.

British Columbia has an excellent public library system and British

Columbians are among the most active library users in Canada. I'm

pleased that despite the difficult times we as a province have been

through, we have managed to hold the line on library grants, and in

some instances to increase them for the 1985-86 fiscal year. This is a

clear reflection of the fact that the government is committed to

maintaining the high quality of library services that British

Columbians expect and deserve.

In amateur sport, the ministry continues to build on the successes

of its development program. This House and the news media should be

aware by now that last year was our best ever in Olympic competition,

with 112 B.C. athletes competing in the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles;

in fact, we made up 25 percent of the Canadian team. In addition, our

Winter Olympics athletes and our disabled athletes distinguished

themselves in international competition. This accomplishment is the

result of a coordinated sport development program, which involves

sports organizations, local volunteers, corporate sponsors and

government. It involves a systematic identification of talent, the

training of coaches as well as athletes, and exposure to first-class

competition.

[10:15]

This year my ministry will make $1.6 million available in strategic

ways to double the number of B.C. athletes on the winter Olympics team

for the 1988 Olympics in Calgary. Called the B.C. Best Ever '88

Olympics program, this initiative will help athletes and sports

organizations plan and train over the next three years, with the

objective of making the Canadian Olympic team. For the summer games in

Seoul,

[ Page 6562 ]

Korea, we'll be putting together a funding program that will build on the outstanding performance in Los Angeles.

An important part of the mandate of the ministry is the provision of

support services to government. Our postal, personnel, printing and

information services continue to go through a process of streamlining.

The development of government personnel services has made it possible

for us to separate the hiring and appeal functions, and it will allow

us to delegate more responsibility for hiring to line ministries. At a

saving this year of more than $3.4 million, this new division, headed

by an assistant deputy minister, has made government personnel services

leaner, more productive and, at the same time, more responsive to the

needs of government ministries.

In

summary, I'm proud that the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and

Government Services has streamlined its operations and improved

productivity through the last few difficult years. Through the

streamlining mechanism and by making the thing leaner and more

economic, it has really been possible for us to increase funding to the

various organizations in British Columbia. I'm very pleased that we've

been able to do that, because the benefit flows to the community rather

than to the bureaucracy. With these few words I look forward to a few

questions, I'm sure, on the activities of my ministry in the past and

on its policies for the future.

MR. HANSON: Listening to the hon. Provincial Secretary in his

opening remarks, one has the sense that he's reading us a bedtime

story. It's just a lot of frippery,

Mr. Chairman, in this minister's vote we have very ominous trends.

In fact, I'd like to begin my remarks by giving that minister credit

for a great deal of the anguish that British Columbians have

experienced over the last year, because he has been one of the central

ministers responsible for the so-called restraint program.

As you can recall, Mr. Chairman, Bill 3, one of the pillars of the

restraint program, a direct attack on the public sector in this

province, has resulted in.... As the Royal Bank, the Conference Board

of Canada and many other independent assessment agencies have

indicated, it is these kinds of programs that have resulted in the lack

of economic recovery in British Columbia. So you certainly deserve

credit for being instrumental in bringing those programs in. But you

didn't do it yourself; you were just doing what you were told to do by

the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order, and also the member will relate his remarks to the minister's administrative activities.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying is that with the

advantage of time we've been able to see that that minister wasn't

really acting on his own; he was acting under instructions from the

Premier, and particularly the Premier's chief adviser, Mr. Patrick

Kinsella. Mr. Patrick Kinsella gave the public of British Columbia a

good look at the way this government operates when he was invited to

speak at Simon Fraser University. He indicated that the way the Social

Credit government operates is through manipulation of the public

through public-opinion polling, paid for by the taxpayers themselves,

with the addition of excessive advertising, also paid for by the

taxpayers. Mr. Kinsella, in his transcript from the Simon Fraser

speech, gave us a really good look at the Social Credit mentality: the

way they view the public, the way they view their right to spend tax

dollars on their political agenda and political campaign. He indicated

in the transcript that unlike other pollsters who take a snapshot of

the public in time and assess the public's views, the approach and

philosophy of Allan Gregg, one of the principal owners of Decima

Research — of course, this is the polling firm for the Social Credit

Party, as well as working for the government — is that they manipulate.

The idea is to move the public and shape the public's view by

manipulation. By understanding and having some sense of public

attitudes they then, through advertising and manipulation, shift and

move, in a very cynical way, the people of the province into trying to

follow that.

He indicated that the whole restraint program and the imaging around

that restraint program for the 1983 election was to create a tough guy

image for the Premier of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, this relates directly to the mandate and responsibilities of this minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for explaining that. If the member

could further advise the committee how this does relate to the vote

that's before us now, I'm sure the committee would be well served. I

seem to be hearing discussion of another minister's administrative

responsibility and another minister's staff. We are on vote 60 of the

Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. To the vote,

please.

MR. HANSON: What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that this

minister, being responsible for the polling within the government....

For much of the polling; I know polling is done by ministries, and that

is of concern as well. But primarily, the advertising and polling

budget that falls within the mandate of this minister was being used to

shape and manipulate the views of the people of British Columbia in a

very, very cynical way.

This provincial government is the largest advertiser in this

province. They are the third-largest advertiser, when you add Expo, in

all of Canada. Only the national government and Procter and Gamble are

larger advertisers than this minister here — this Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kinsella indicated to us that prior to his arrival

the British Columbia government did very little polling at all. It was

a tradition in this province that people legislated — that governments

governed — on the basis of their own views, and that their policies and

platforms were not primarily intended to manipulate the people of the

province. But we were treated to a massive departure when Mr. Kinsella

arrived from Ontario, after his experience with the Davis government

and his experience in the United States, and to a new approach to

politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. member, I would advise the member

we are dealing with administrative actions that do not appear to be

within the scope of the Provincial Secretary. Can the member return to

the vote before us, please?

MR. HANSON: Polling, Mr. Chairman, is under this minister. Advertising is under this minister. The restraint

[ Page

6563 ]

program is under this minister, largely. So I'm really not sure what your interventions are all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you're referring to a former public

servant who was not employed by the Provincial Secretary; it was

another minister's office. To the vote before us, please.

MR. HANSON: Fine. Just to outline the structure of this

ministry that is of particular concern to us, there is a government

information service which has a budget of $20 million. That government

information service is playing a very interesting role with this

government. They are contracting out advertising and polling. My

understanding is that they are involved even with the administration of

cabinet ministers' travel — that they play a role in advising the

government where they should travel and what they should say. They are

more of a propaganda arm of Social Credit than a true public

information service, That, Mr. Chairman, is a very disturbing trend. I

want to ask the minister some questions in a moment. You know, when you

look at other aspects of this minister's jurisdiction that he has

totally altered and politicized over the last few years, there's the

role of the government agents. Government agents were at one time

longtime career public employees who, because of merit, were occupying

positions in the various regions of the province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, government agents are with the

Ministry of Finance. We're discussing the Provincial Secretary's

estimates at this point.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, it does relate because the

government agents now are being asked to feed back media information to

the government about how cabinet ministers look on television and

whether the particular news clips are carried and how they look, and so

on. That is a totally different way that government agents function now

than that they functioned in the past. For example, here we have a memo

from government information services — which is under this minister —

which is a message to all government agents. This is just a little

aside to give you a flavour of how government agents work these days,

and what they're expected to do:

"Message to all government agents. Government

information services today sent to BCTV a three minute video clip of

Energy Minister Stephen Rogers visiting the Gulf Canada anthracite

coal-mine at Mt. Klappan. The minister is in the company of Gulf Canada

executive Al Johnson. We would appreciate your watching local TV news

and letting us know by FAX" — whatever FAX is; what is that, some kind

of...? — "if the item is used and how it looks. Thank you. Government

information services.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: The point, Mr. Chairman, is that this government is using government agents as media monitors for the Social Credit government.

AN HON. MEMBER: And government equipment.

MR. HANSON: And government equipment. How about those apples!

The government agents were never asked to do that kind of thing

before. They were never a part of the government information service

network. So here we have a very disturbing trend. The government has

increased its information budget — its advertising budget — to the

point that it's the third-largest advertiser in all of Canada.

Meanwhile the food lines get longer and the programs get cut and the

attack goes on, based on polling.

[10:30]

Just on the weekend Martin Goldfarb said: "Oh, well, recently

strategic polling has been going on around the education issue."

They're polling and manipulating around education. Strategic polling is

going on around tourism. Here we have a government that has completely

lost the boundary where Social Credit ends and where the public service

begins, We've talked about that many, many times in this House.

What are the numbers on polling that the public should be aware of?

They're very difficult to know, because there are small polls mentioned

in news articles by various cabinet ministers: such-and-such a company

did a poll for us for $30,000, some other one did a poll for so many

thousand. Those aren't the firms that we are even aware of.

Let's just look at Goldfarb, Canadian Facts, Canadian Gallup: in

1978-79, $300,000 in polling was paid for by the taxpayer. I'm sure

there were others, smaller or buried somewhere in other vouchers —

McKim vouchers or some other vouchers; it's very difficult to tell —

some supplier, but I'm sure paid for by the taxpayers. In 1979-80

Goldfarb Consultants, Canadian Facts, Canadian Gallup Poll, Public

Affairs International — taxpayers paid, just with those four firms,

$182, 219. It picked up more. In 1980-81 Goldfarb Consultants, Canadian

Facts, Canadian Gallup, Public Affairs International.... Public Affairs

International, Mr. Chairman, is a very interesting one because it's an

allied firm of Decima, Allan Gregg's firm, the Social Credit Party's

firm. In 1981-82, as I've just stated, they were paid a quarter of a

million dollars in taxpayers' money. Those are what we know. There were

others, hard to find though. In 1982-83 just Canadian Gallup, Goldfarb,

Public Affairs International, the arm of Decima, were paid $155,000 of

taxpayers' money. Think of all the cuts, all the austerity, all the

restraint, all the layoffs, all the firings, all the anguish that that

minister created under Bill 3 and other bills; yet what has he been

doing? In 1982-83, $155,797.

Mr. Speaker, in '83-84 just with Goldfarb and Public Affairs

International and not counting other smaller firms like Hayhurst and

others, it was $86,459. In those six years alone the ones we've been

able to find — just ones we've been able to readily put our hands on

because they're in Public Accounts or there's a notation that they're

in

schedule 2, indicating they're a supplier of a service and stated

there — received $1.234 million of public money. Goldfarb, Public

Affairs International, Canadian Gallup — $1.2 million in polling, of

what we can find. There are many, many more polls — many more smaller

operations that are buried somewhere, attached to great lengthy voucher

statements somewhere.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, here we have a province that doesn't disclose, as

they do in Ontario. A poll paid for by the taxpayer is disclosed and

tabled in the Legislature in the province of Ontario, yet this minister

lives where the sun never shines and the polling dollars flow out of

the back of the truck. A total of $1.2 million in the last six years to

the very

[ Page 6564 ]

obvious polling firms that we can find, and yet

there is no public disclosure, no guidelines at all. It's a travesty,

Mr. Chairman. And advertising is incredible.

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for a member of this Legislature,

even those on the Public Accounts Committee, to examine the vouchers of

this province. At one time not so long ago, members of this House were

allowed to review vouchers, and their staff were allowed to review

vouchers. They were allowed to make copies of vouchers for examination.

That was the right of the members of the Public Accounts Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One more time to the member. We are dealing

with the vote of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government

Services. If the member wishes to bring in debate on what has happened

in another committee of this Legislative Assembly, it is out of order.

To the vote before us, please.

MR. HANSON: What I am leading up to, Mr. Chairman, is one of my first questions to the minister. I'd like him to make note, if he would.

Upon reviewing a Goldfarb voucher, audit account no. 64-1489 in the

amount of $55,000 to Goldfarb Consultants. Attached to that letter was

a letter to the Provincial Secretary from the Minister of Finance as

chairman of Treasury Board. It was regarding the government

communication plan. Apparently the government communication plan must

be some kind of a comprehensive document that was scrutinized by

Treasury Board, and Treasury Board wrote a letter on April 6, 1984,

marked "personal and confidential" from the Minister of Finance to the

Provincial Secretary:

"My dear colleague:

"I am writing in response to a memorandum I received

from Mr. Chazottes of government information services dated March 26,

1984 (copy attached) " — and there was no copy attached to the voucher

— "concerning delegated authority for fee-for-service contracts

relating to government's communication plan.

"On July 13, 1983, I wrote to Mr. Heal" — we are all

familiar with Mr. Doug Heal in this House — "the communications

counsel, informing him of the amount of information and advertising

funds transferred from ministries to government information services to

be centrally administered for the 1983-84 fiscal year. In that letter I

informed him that no further approval from Treasury Board was required

for the expenditure of the funds, since the communications plan of the

government had been reviewed and approved by Treasury Board in

approving the government information services 1983-84 budget."

If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Chairman, that would be about

$18 million. So the Minister of Finance was saying: "The $18 million

has been approved. We no longer need to know what you want to spend it

on."

I'll go on with the letter:

"While I specifically stated that the exemption

applied to STOB" — standard object of expenditure — "40 (information

and advertising) funds, I now understand that funds for similar

purposes were also budgeted under STOB 20 (fee-for-service contracts).

I wish to confirm that this exemption from Treasury Board approval

applies to all expenditures, regardless of coding" — so anything to do

with advertising, anything to do with polling, anything to do with

fee-for-service contracts, anything to do with vehicle rental, anything

to do with helicopters, anything to do with anything, any coding —

"that form part of the government's communications plan approved by

Treasury Board.

"I also wish to confirm that this exemption will

continue to be in effect for the 1984-85 fiscal year, as Treasury Board

has already reviewed and approved the government's communications plan

when it approved the government information services budget for

1984-85."

So what is the government information budget for 1984-85 — just the

GIS budget in the book? Twenty million dollars. They don't have to go

back to Treasury Board. How many other ministries have that? I thought

there were various kinds of directives from Treasury Board that said if

the expenditure is over so much money — over $5,000 or over some other

figure — they'd come back to be vetted by Treasury Board or something

of that nature.

My first question to the minister is: will he please outline the

government information plan, and will he provide this House with a copy

of that plan?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there were a lot of words but

not too many questions. First, the member for Vancouver or Victoria —

wherever he's from.... Are you the first or the second member? I have

some difficulty remembering that.

MR. HANSON: Answer the question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First, the member said that.... I'm going to

respond to some of the false statements that he made, first of all. He

said that Decima is working for the government of British Columbia. I

want to say that Decima does not have a contract or a subcontract with

the provincial government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. The minister may be of

the opinion that another member is incorrect, but "false statements" is

treading very closely to an imputation that would not be accepted.

Anyway, please continue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I withdraw without reservation, Mr.

Chairman. Without reservation, I withdraw the statement but he makes an

inaccurate statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Victoria on a point of order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier of the province, in

responding to a question taken as notice with respect to polls paid for

by the taxpayer, indicated in this House that Decima Research has had

polls paid for by the taxpayer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. The

minister continues. The member can bring that debate into committee any

time he is recognized.

HON. MR. CHABOT: As previously stated, Mr. Chairman, the member is in error when he says that Decima is

[ Page 6565 ]

working for the government, because Decima does not have a contract or a subcontract with the government.

The member talks about GIS — not the guaranteed income supplement,

but government information services. He fails to realize that we have

centralized the various expenditures for advertising of every ministry

of government under the auspices of GIS. The member, I think, tends to

lose his credibility when he reads a directive that has been issued by

GIS to government agents and he adds words to that particular letter,

words that were not contained within that letter. Then, when I asked

him to repeat the contents of that letter, he quickly retracted those

words, in which he said "how it looks."

The GIS are attempting to monitor information services. They've clearly

asked the government agents of British Columbia to determine whether a particular

clip had been used; I don't think there's anything wrong with asking

that. But he added the words "and how it looks." I want to say that

there were no such words in that letter going from government information services

to the government agents of British Columbia. The member tends to do these kinds

of things. He has a great tendency to add things, such as when he looked at

the voucher for payment to PSI, which he....

[10:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: PAI.

MR. HANSON: That's an arm of Decima.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He went on to say that the paper and the

voucher had to do with political parties in British Columbia. That's

taking political licence, as far as I'm concerned, by suggesting that

the paper had anything to do with political parties in British

Columbia. The research document had to do with parties and policies.

But no, the member wants to....

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

MR. HANSON: It's not parties and policies; the minister is incorrect. It's parties and politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. We

are in committee. You will have every opportunity to debate when you

are recognized. Please confine points of order to legitimate points of

order. The minister continues.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the voucher did say "parties and politics."

AN HON. MEMBER: You were wrong.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right; I've just checked it. But the

member was wrong, and his credibility is being challenged when he suggests that

the paper really deals with political parties in British Columbia. So I wonder

how much credibility we can attach to many of the statements he's making.

Also, he attempts to leave the impression that government information services is used as a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister has referred to a document — public, I suppose....

HON. MR. CHABOT: A little piece of paper here.

MR. MACDONALD: A little piece of paper. But you've quoted from the

document, if only its title, and it should be tabled in the House. It belongs

to the people of the province. Otherwise, we simply don't take your word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: No, we're not taking your word for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver East will come

to order. The tabling of documents is a matter for the House and not

for a committee. I'm sure all members are aware of that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I did not quote from any documents here. As

I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the member for

Vancouver East, he attempts to leave the impression that the $20

million allocated to government information services for propaganda

purposes on the part of government.... I just want to put on the record

what these expenditures really cover. As I said a little earlier, it's

an amalgamation of the expenditures of various ministries of government

under government information services. Just to give you some idea as to

what the funds are used for.... I'll give you the proposed

expenditures, but first I'll tell you what the funds are used for in

various ministries of government. I think it's important that the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) listen.

The Attorney-General's ministry, for instance, has Law Reform

Commission publication of reports and working papers, advertising for

Counterattack and traffic safety, reports of boards and commissions.

MR. HANSON: It's $1.8 million for the whole works.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a moment. I'll give you the dollar figures. There is the member chirping up. He doesn't want to hear the truth.

Agriculture and Food: for the promotion of B.C. agriculture industry

technical publications; pest control — are you against that?; livestock

production manuals; five-year agricultural strategy; crop technology —

45 to 50 publications; public awareness; mark-of-excellence in-store

promotions; food: hospitality trade shows.

Consumer and Corporate Affairs; consumer education course — which is

a compulsory course in secondary schools: reprints of existing

materials on statutes and regulations; renting and investing.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Ministry of Forests: fire prevention advertising; burning permit

publications; pest management reports; publications and films; brochure

maps; forest recreation sites and trails; litter bags; land management

reports and handbooks; forest reports; research review resource

planning manual published each March.

[ Page 6566 ]

Ministry of Health: reports of boards and commissions; public

notices; vital statistics publications; health promotion campaign to

reduce utilization of treatment services; education materials for

mental health; self-help; new organ donor registry; external

publications as required by health services' routine public notices.

Ministry of Human Resources: information advertising on child abuse;

enforcement of maintenance; foster recruitment packages; child abuse

manual.

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development: reprinting and

upgrading of existing publications; promotion; trade export activities;

business and industrial expansion; publications in support of trade

export activities; international trade and investment; Expo 86 business

visitors' campaign; the publications "B.C., Canada, Land of

Opportunity," "Export-Import Opportunities," "B.C. Facts," "China

Chinese, French and Japanese; advertising the ministry awareness of

entrepreneurial immigration; international marketing.

Ministry of Labour: apprenticeship and employment training programs;

safety engineering literature — gas, electrical and elevating devices;

women's programs; employment standards; job creation; human rights;

Labour Code; mediation.

Ministry of Education: schools list; post-secondary booklets;

circulars; field services; bulletins; curriculum development; learning

assessment; examinations; correspondence publications; school

operations; visually impaired and handicapped special education; Indian

education; institutional support services; continuing education;

post-secondary curriculum development; Provincial Educational Media

Centre; academic technical programs.

Ministry of Environment: snow accumulation statistics; forecast

trends in water runoff; new waste management program; beverage

container refund regulations; environmental protection plans;

privatization of map distribution system; tourist opportunities in

sports fishery; hunting regulations synopsis; wildlife management;

hunter training; waste management; surveys and resource mapping;

fishing regulations synopsis; fish distribution reports.

Finance: public procurement strategy; B.C. vendor participation;

consumer taxation; property taxation; government agencies' brochures; Financial and Economic Review ; background papers to budget; discussion papers; quarterly reports.

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing: park and safety brochures;

park multimedia promotion; housing brochures; trade and home show

displays; outdoor recreation brochures; technical publications; lands

legal advertising.

Municipal Affairs: municipal statistics; circulars and notices; building standards publications.

Provincial Secretary and Government Services: awareness campaign;

Victoria attractions brochures; pension information; records management

manuals.

Ministry of Tourism: trade publications; film promotion office;

familiarization tours; travel writers; travel planners; domestic,

international and offshore distribution; Superhost program — that is,

hospitality training; Partners in Tourism; regional, national and

international advertising to promote Tourism B.C.

Ministry of Transportation and Highways: road-user safety; child

restraint; bicycle safe-driving habits; driver licensing manuals;

safe-driving and safe-riding guides; air brakes; commercial truckers'

handbook; engineering safety brochures.

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications: certificate

and grant applications promoting compressed natural gas as alternative

fuel; open university consortium; government science and technology

initiatives; scientific research development in B.C.; seminars and

workshops in high-technology areas.

The member for Victoria suggests that there are no statutory

requirements and there is no advertising on the part of various

government agencies, and I'm just saying some of the advertising that

does take place — some statutory and some non-statutory — from

government agencies that I have listed.... I wonder whether the members

of the opposition are opposed to these various programs that I have

enumerated which cost millions and millions of dollars. They attempt to

leave the impression that the advertising budget is for the

embellishment of the Social Credit Party. These expenditures are

requirements of each ministry of government.

I'm just going to give you some figures as to the dollars that are

allocated to different ministries of government. First of all, the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food has $487,000 allocated for their

advertising requirements, as I outlined a little earlier. The

Attorney-General, $540,000; Consumer and Corporate Affairs, $63,000;

Education, $819,000; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, $367,000;

Ministry of Environment, $382,000; Ministry of Finance, $192,000;

Ministry of Forests, $393,000; Ministry of Health, $827,000; Human

Resources, $130,000; Industry and Small Business Development, $500,000;

IGR, $14,000; International Trade and Investment, $500,000; Labour,

$568,000; Lands, Parks and Housing, $979,000; Municipal Affairs,

$26,000; Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government Services,

$248,000; Transportation and Highways, $287,000; Universities, Science

and Communications, $155,000; GIS, $529,000; Tourism, $9,100,000; for a

total of $17,106,000 of necessary advertising on the part of various

ministries of government, some of it statutory and some of it not.

[11:00]

So I put to rest the false impression which has been consistently

conveyed by the member for Victoria and that party across the way as to

how advertising dollars are expended and which ministries of government

expend advertising dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, Mr. Minister.

MR. HANSON: Tell us about the communications plans that you forgot to tell us about.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I want to thank the member for

Victoria for reminding me of that. Of course, you have to realize that

my time is very limited here, because the lights go on, and once the

lights....

MR. MACDONALD: You're all right until the next election.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've been hearing that from you and some of your friends over there for 22 years — for the last seven elections, my friend.

On the government communications plans, he talked about preapprovals and this sinister personal and confidential

[ Page 6567 ]

letter which I received from the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) about preapprovals. He's attempting to leave

the impression that there is special recognition for government

information services. Preapprovals are nothing new in government.

Preapprovals from Treasury Board are nothing new. Preapprovals are

available to every ministry of government and used by every ministry of

government. Just for the member's education, I think I will quote from

the directive issued by Treasury Board, which has been in place.... He

attempts to leave the impression that there's something sinister going

on here with preapprovals on the budget of government information

services, that they are unique, that no other ministry of government

has this kind of blank cheque. That's straight rubbish, straight

nonsense, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I will quote from the budget on

administrative policy. This was issued on December 1, 1981 — four and a

half years ago; four years and seven months, to be exact. It had this

to say about procedures on the part of different ministries of

government. It's not selective. There's no favourable consideration for

any branch of my ministry; it's for all ministries of government. It

says this about Treasury Board approvals, dealing with preapprovals.

And this is not a bulletin issued strictly to accommodate government

information services. It has been in place since 1981. I know that

you've attempted, through Public Accounts, to question the

auditor-general, and to suggest that there is something sinister going

on here, that there is special consideration for certain agencies of

government which is not available to other agencies of government. But

this is a directive, issued to all ministries of government, which

addresses preapprovals, and it is dated December 1, 1981.

"Preapprovals. A preapproval for any expenditure item

covered by an existing directive may be obtained by including the item

in a ministry's annual budget submission. A description of the nature

of the request, the justification and the financial information

necessary for proper evaluation should be attached. Where Treasury

Board approval is requested for a number of similar expenditures, and

the same program specification or criterion applies to each

expenditure, approval may be requested for the total dollar amount."

I wish the member would listen and stop chit-chatting over there,

because he'll come back and make the accusation that the dollar values

are substantially greater in government information services than they

are in other ministries. I just want you to pick up those very select

and important words. So I'm going to repeat them so you won't forget

them: "Where Treasury Board approval is requested for a number of

similar expenditures, and the same program specification or criterion

applies to each expenditure, approval may be requested for the total

dollar amount." These are not guidelines drawn up specifically for

government information services; they are guidelines that pertain to

all ministries of government.

"The use of this procedure is arranged by Treasury

Board analysts and ministry officials. In normal circumstances a

preapproval is final. In unusual circumstances, such as periods of

remedial fiscal restraint, preapproval items may be affected by

Treasury Board controls or limitations of expenditure. At such times

ministries will have cause to review their expenditure plans, including

preapproval items."

It also outlines the methods of communication of these approvals.

"Once Treasury Board has adjudicated a Treasury Board submission or a

request for preapproval of an expenditure, the decision of the board

will be conveyed to the appropriate minister in a letter which

indicates...." Yes, this is the very sinister letter that you've

uncovered in public accounts. But I'll repeat that again because you

were talking again.

" Once Treasury Board has adjudicated a Treasury Board

submission or a request for preapproval of an expenditure, the decision

of the board will be conveyed to the appropriate minister in a letter

which indicates approval or approval with conditions or non-approval.

This information will also be conveyed to the office of the

comptroller-general for the determination of expenditure control

procedures."

So the letter that you have that was sent by the Minister of Finance

to myself really follows very closely — follows, in fact, without any

deviation whatsoever — the directives that are issued under Treasury

Board, which he is obligated to do and under which he is obligated to

notify the comptroller-general as well, so that the comptroller-general

can then put in place the kind of controls that are necessary on

government expenditures.

I think there's another point that I should make, for the

information of the member on these preapprovals. He's been attempting

for several weeks now to make political mileage on the issue of

preapprovals.

MR. WILLIAMS: He's done very well.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, he hasn't done very well at all. Yes,

he's done very well in misinforming the people of British Columbia as

to what takes place in government. If you think that's doing fairly

well, fine, you might have a perverted mind when it comes to those

kinds of points of view.

But I want to tell the member.... You might have a perverted mind,

Mr. Member for Vancouver East, but I just want to tell the member for

Victoria that these directives of Treasury Board were put in place —

I'm going to repeat it again — in December 1981, before government

information services was established. So don't attempt to leave the

impression that this directive was put there or that there is special

treatment for the government information services, because there isn't.

The government information services have to go through the same

preapproval process as all ministries of government, and the directive

was put in place long before GIS was put in place. So there is nothing

sinister about GIS.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just like increasing McKim $2 million just before the election.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't suggest for one second

that this minister would be misleading the House or giving us any kind

of a snow job, as I've heard some of my colleagues indicate. But I

sometimes get a little cynical when I read vouchers, and I got

particularly cynical the other day when I read a voucher.

Let me tell you what it was all about. It was audit control number

036775, the department control number was 487403, and it was a voucher

for $87,271.50. So far, so good, right? Everything okay?

[ Page 6568 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's the date?

MR. COCKE: The date of the voucher — well, I'm not going to

give you the date yet. I'm going to give you the dates of.... This was

a voucher that was to prepay expenses for June 1983 ads in Time and Maclean's .

Okay? So far, so good, right? June 1983, a month after the election.

But that money was sent somewhat before the election, and, lo and

behold, we found that it was to pay.... Don't forget this was prepaid

to pay those June Time and Maclean's ads, but it actually paid, through McKim, $87,271.50 for April 1983 TV spots during the election campaign.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. COCKE: Yes. It was authorized to pay Time and Maclean's

ads after the election, but actually used to pay for TV spots during

the election. I don't know whether any of my colleagues remember TV ads

during the election campaign. It's all in the voucher, gang. It's all

there. So look up audit control 036775 and you will find it all there —

April TV spots. That minister is standing up and giving us....

MR. HANSON: That's before the election.

MR. COCKE: Just during the election campaign. The election was May 5.

MR. ROSE: They're not party politics though.

MR. COCKE: Oh no, never, never, never. Never make accusations

against that nice little minister — unless you can prove them. And this

one is proved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Progress, not politics.

MR. COCKE: Check on your vouchers, my friend.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Progress, not politics.

MR. COCKE: Progress is right. TV ads during the election campaign where money actually was set aside to put ads in Time and Maclean's

after the campaign. All of a sudden there was a big change of heart,

and McKim did the job for the government during that campaign.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we still don't have the outline of

the communications plan outlined for this blanket preapproval on $18

million of expenditure for government information — for advertising.

Let me just tell the House a few facts regarding advertising under this government.

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You'll have your chance. You weren't clear on the plan at all.

First of all, $1.7 million is statutory and the rest is what they call informational

advertising. Sorry, $1.9 million is statutory; $17.8 million is information

advertising. In other words, less than 10 percent is statutory. The rest is

the manipulation we've been talking about. In 1974-75, the last year of

the NDP government, the advertising and publications expenditure was $5.6 million.

It rose in '82-83 — the year prior to the election — to even more than it

is right now: $22 million. It is now $20 million. In other words, from 1978

through to 1986 in the estimates, over $167 million will be spent on advertising

and publications by this government. In '74-75 it was $5.6 million; 1978-79,

$13 million; 1979-80, $14 million; 1980-81, $15 million; '81-82, $20 million;

'82-83, $22 million; '83-84, $18 million; '84-85, $20 million; and

'85-86, $20 million, plus $25 million for Expo, taking it up to something

in the order of $43 million to $45 million for government advertising.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What does that mean? In 1982-83 government advertising direct costs

were $22 per household in British Columbia — $22 compared to $4.4 in

1972-73. The advertising budget is five times what it was in '72-73,

the first year of the NDP government. These people have lots of money

for advertising, lots of money for polling, lots of schemes for the

manipulation of the public.

This minister is very, very.... His standard response.... If I

criticize him in the House, he doesn't answer. If I put questions on

the order paper, he doesn't answer. If I ask outside of the House, he

wants me to raise it in the House. If I raise it in the House, he wants

me to raise it out of the House. He's the only minister who can get

into an elevator without the door opening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that nonsense?

MR. HANSON: That's mine.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: I'm even getting applause from your side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we return to the administrative responsibilities of the minister, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, all last session I had questions on

the order paper with respect to all of the sensitive political

advertising that was carried out on television — the Latremouille ads

and all that sort of thing — and he never answers.

"11:

(1) What was the cost of production of the 'Province

Reports' series of television ads aired during 1982 and 1983?" That

was prior to the provincial election. "

(2) For the amounts listed in reply

to No. 1, to whom were these funds paid, for what goods and services were the

payments made, and on what dates were the payments made?

(3) What was the cost

of purchasing air time for the "Province Reports" TV ads, broken down

by the television station on which the ads were aired?

(4) What evaluation was

done of the effect and effectiveness of this advertising series?

(5) What were

the contents of reports filed with the government in respect to the evaluation

of "Province Reports" TV series?

(6) What guidelines presently exist

within government for the use of taxpayers' funds for political advertisements?"

My answer is that there's none.

"12. Mr. Hanson to ask the Provincial Secretary and Minister

of Government Services minister the

[ Page

6569 ]

following questions:

(1) What was the cost of production of the

B.C. Lotteries, Expo 86 series of television advertisements aired during 1982

and 1983?

(2) For the amounts listed in reply to No. 1, to whom were these funds

paid, for what goods and services were the payments made, and on what dates

were the payments made?

(3) What was the cost of purchasing air time for B.C.

Lotteries, Expo 86 TV ads, broken down by television station on which the ads

were aired?

(4) What evaluation was done of the effect and effectiveness of

this advertising series?

(5) What were the contents of reports filed with the

government in respect to the evaluation of B.C. Lotteries, Expo 86 TV series?

(6) What guidelines presently exist within government for the use of taxpayers'

funds for political ads?

"13. Mr. Hanson to ask the Hon. the Provincial Secretary

and Minister of Government Services the following:

(1) What was the cost of

production of the B.C. Lotteries, health care series of TV ads aired during

1982 and 1983?

(2) For the amounts listed in reply to No. 1, to who were the

funds paid, for what goods and services were the payments made?

(3) What was

the cost of purchasing air time for the B.C. Lotteries, health care TV ads,

broken down by the television station on which the ads were aired?

(4) What

evaluation was done of the effect and effectiveness of this advertising series?

(5) What were the contents of reports filed with the government in respect to

the evaluation of B.C. Lotteries, health care TV series?

"14. Mr. Hanson to ask the Hon. the Provincial Secretary

and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

(1) What was the

cost of production of B.C. Lotteries, ALRT series of television advertisements

aired during 1982 and 1983?

(2) For the amounts listed in reply to No. 1, to

whom were these funds paid, for what goods and services were the payments made,

and on what dates were the payments made?

(3) What was the cost of purchasing

air time for B.C. Lotteries, ALRT TV ads, broken down by TV stations on which

the ads were aired?

(4) What evaluation was done of the effect and effectiveness

of this advertising series?

(5) What were the contents of reports filed with

government with respect to the evaluation of B.C. Lotteries, ALRT series?

(6) What guidelines presently exist within government for the use of taxpayers'

funds for political advertisements?

"15. Mr. Hanson to ask the Hon. the Provincial Secretary

and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

(1) What was the

cost of production of the TRAC series of television advertisements aired during

1982 and 1983?

(2) For the amounts listed in reply to No. 1, to whom were these

funds paid, for what goods and services were the payments made, and on what

dates were the payments made?

(3) What was the cost of purchasing air time for

the TRAC TV ads, broken down by the television station on which the ads were

aired?

(4) What evaluation was done of the effect and effectiveness of this

advertising series?

(6) What guidelines presently exist within government for

the use of taxpayers' funds for political advertising?

"16:

(1) How many copies of the annual report for 1982-1983

and 1983-1984 for each of the Crown corporations and agencies were printed?

(2) To whom were they distributed?

(3) What was the cost for each year and for

each Crown corporation or agency for the production, including staff time, printing

and distribution?"

No answers. No answers for two sessions of this House.

I've had other questions of a minor nature on this order paper, and he comes

back and shuffles them off to other ministers. We have a very, very serious

problem.

Here we have a budget for government information services....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You take a look. We have a government information services

with a budget of $20 million. Yet we have all sorts of other people monitoring

the news and doing other kinds of things — doing biographical research on MLAs,

for example. That's included in the voucher — assembling biographical information

on MLAs. Who needs it? Why?

What's this Frank Ogden doing? You have a government information services with

$20 million and a whole staff. They pay this man $5,000 a month to watch the

news for them. I found this voucher very, very interesting stuff. The figure

$5,000 a month appears to be the latest: January 31, 1984, and February 31, 1985

for $4,935 a month.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sixty thousand a year to watch the news?

MR. HANSON: Anyone in the House want to get $60,000? This is what they

have to do. They have to have a video cassette machine. They have to watch the

6 o'clock CBC news, the BCTV news hour — those are both at 6. Then you have

to watch the 10 p.m. CBC news, the 11 p.m. CBC national. With many of these

video machines, all you have to do is plug in the timer and it will tape it

for you. You send it off to the government and log it: CTV national, the CBC

local night final, and BCTV news hour final. In other words, the 6 o'clock news,

the 10 to 11, the 11 news and Jack Webster coming on at 12 p.m., and for that

Mr. Ogden gets $5,000 a month. You're spending $20 million already a year on

a government information services and staff. Why do you have to pay Mr. Ogden

$5,000? This is attached. This is the list of what he is supposed to do to get

$5,000 a month. I don't know. The funny thing is that each one of his receipts

and bills has a stamp on it: "In accordance with Treasury Board directive

No. 1, 1984, certified urgently and immediately required for the public good."

MR. WILLIAMS: A real sense of humour.

MR. HANSON: A real sense of humour. Maybe I should read it once more:

"In accordance with Treasury Board directive No. 1, 1984, certified urgently

and immediately required for the public good." I'll tell you, my friend,

$5,000 a month for Mr. Ogden. You've got $20 million government information service,

and you've got the news monitored on contract for $5,000 a month: the 6 o'clock

news, the 10

[ Page 6570 ]

o'clock news, the Jack Webster show, the 11 o'clock

news. Somebody with a video recorder in this building could save the

taxpayers $60,000 a year.

There are others. It's amazing!

MR. WILLIAMS: There's a lot of bad news.

MR. HANSON: There's a lot of bad news.

What have we got over here? Craig Aspinall: what's he doing for the government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Aspinall?

MR. HANSON: You've never heard of him. Boy oh boy, you should

see this stuff. What does he do? He does public relations services over

in Robson Square. His fee is $65 an hour. He bills just a portion of an

hour every day, just to kind of be there. He does press and public

relations services, in this particular voucher, for the period March 1

to March 31. It goes on every month, by the way. It includes client

meetings, media relations, Robson Square; preparation of speech

material. He writes the material; he writes things for them. He

arranges their photo arrangements. He does preparation of MLA

biographical material. Sixty-five bucks an hour, month after month, and

we've got a government information service on a $20 million budget.

We've got people over there in Robson Square, and just like clockwork,

every month, we send the cheque. This one is $3,000 a month.

So we've got Mr. Ogden.... I'm not singling these out as the only

ones; these are just one of the multitudes. So what's he doing? How

come the government information service can't look after Robson Square?

Apparently he hangs around at the cabinet meetings, or I don't what he

does. I don't know, but we're paying for it. The people of this

province are paying for it. It's unbelievable.

Here we have a competent public service, we've got top-level, fine

administrators, and yet what did we do in the government information

service? They brought in consultants to analyze the information service

at $150 an hour. There were two of them from Western Management

Consultants, March 30, 1984. It says "adjusted" under it; I don't know

what that means. I thought the date was the date, but it's March 30,

1984, adjusted — before or after or who knows.

Here's a little bill that's interesting. You mean we don't have the

consulting capacity in this public service to take a look at the

information delivery systems in government without paying people $150

an hour to look at it? Consulting services rendered during November and

December, and January, February and March, 1984, in connection with the

review of the organization of the government information service — 149

hours times $150 an hour was $22,350; and his colleague, the other

person looking at this from Western Management....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Time has elapsed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A few responses. The member has raised a

name that I am not familiar with — Aspinall. I have attempted to check

my records here and see whether we have an Aspinall. I don't know his

first name — I presume this is his last name.

MR. HANSON: Craig.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Craig. I will attempt to see whether we have a Mr. Aspinall working for us or not. But....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[11:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: You know, you can always get up if you have

a question or two to ask. You always have that privilege. I don't have

the opportunity to dominate the floor.

We don't have a Mr. Ogden working for us by contract or subcontract

or any other way. I would have to think that your argument is

irrelevant.

Now on the issue of questions on the order paper, the member said I

shuffled one of his questions from my ministry to some other ministry —

that I was shuffling the answer off to another minister. Mr. Chairman,

the reason I had to do that was because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. First, the minister and all

members will address the Chair. Secondly, other members will not

interrupt while a member is taking his place in debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I was addressing the Chair, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the member has made an accusation that I shuffled one

of his questions off to another minister. I was obligated to do that

because I'm not charged with the administrative responsibilities of

that particular question. In other words, the member for Victoria asked

the question of the wrong minister, and I had no alternative but to

refer it to another minister. Doesn't he want me to do that? Or should

I just leave it on the order paper unanswered? He'd better make up his

mind which he prefers. I just told him that he made a mistake by asking

me that question, that it was under the responsibility of another

minister. I told the member that he should be asking the other minister

to get the answer. I can't give him the answer, because I don't have

the administrative responsibility of that particular question.

We've put to bed preapprovals. I think I gave the member the

government so-called communication plan. I think I outlined to him the

kind of dollars there are and what is referred to as a communication

plan, which is really estimates for proposed advertising expenditures

that are centralized under GIS for other ministries of government. So I

think I've pretty well answered the questions, Mr. Chairman.

Of course, the member attempted to leave a false impression that the

government is.... You know, he adds a bunch of figures, he goes back

six years and says: "That totals so much." Now he's attempting to leave

the impression that the advertising budget of Expo is really a

government advertising budget; that essentially it's not $20 million,

it's $45 million, and it makes it so many hundreds of percentages more

of advertising. I think the member is protesting and attempting to

muddy the waters. I think he should really be careful the way he

muddies the waters on these issues.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not today defending anyone; I'm

charging the minister. I charged the minister a while ago and I'm

charging him now with spending $87,271.50 that was designated for Time and Maclean's

[ Page

6571 ]

advertising in 1983.... Instead of that, it was diverted to TV spots in April,

during the election campaign of that year.

Mr. Chairman, the kind of advertising that goes on is just like this illustration.

In 1983 there was a series of vouchers, almost every one of which was for pre-election

advertising — $603,894.11. Anybody would have had to have been blind immediately

prior to and during that campaign not to notice that every magazine and every

TV station — every vehicle for advertising — was just cluttered with government

advertising. When the minister says that his information service is purely providing

service for other ministries to get out the message of what the government's

doing, there are far too many coincidences. For example, during April the Ministry

of Education spent $8,188.88 for 1,400 lines in the Vancouver Sun . The reason

I bring this to the attention of the House is that there was a real argument

over payment. Finally Dorothy Phillips asked for a letter of explanation. Don't

forget that we're talking about a period from the beginning of April to the

end of April, 1983, during that campaign. They finally paid the bill in February

MR. HANSON: No!

MR. COCKE: Yes! It was authorized February 23, 1984. There was an argument

going on for over a year over whether or not that bill should be paid.

The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that when one looks through public accounts during

that pre-election period, it's just like looking at confetti, in terms of the

number of vouchers that were put forward for advertising. And every nickel of

it, that I could find, was through McKim's. It's nice to have an agency of record

that one can talk to and suggest: "Well, change the advertising. We don't

need that June ad in Maclean's and Time . What we'll settle for is a bunch of

TV spots a month or two earlier, during an election campaign." So that's

really what we wanted to find out.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) asked a whole series of questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ancient history.

MR. COCKE: Ancient history? It would be ancient history if that series

of questions had been answered, but they weren't answered. The minister decided

that they weren't worthy of his time. If his responsibility to the public of

B.C. isn't taken more seriously than that, then I think, Mr. Chairman, we have

no alternative but to say the minister should resign and go out to pasture where

he belongs.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He doesn't eat grass. What do you do with it?

Anyway, we would like to have some answers. If we can't get them on the order

paper, why wouldn't the minister give them in the House? I listened to him read

that long list that he had a while ago. What a job that was! It didn't really

attribute anything to anything; it was just a smoke job. Of course we know governments

spend money. But we also indicate that governments spend a lot more money than

they should in advertising during election periods, even to the extent of diverting

money, during that period, from a time that would be subsequent to an election

to a time during an election campaign.

So what about it? Will the minister 'fess up? Will he tell us just exactly

what they're doing with taxpayers' money? That's a huge sum that this minister

has at his fingertips. We can just imagine what's going to happen during the

next campaign or just prior to it. One thing, we'll know when it's going to

happen. I noticed during the prelude to the last campaign, there was an edition

of the automotive journal — I think they call it Westworld now, do they? It's

the old British Columbia Automobile Association magazine. Before the election,

of the 32 pages in the magazine some 16 were B.C. government ads. The magazine

immediately after the election was over had not one single, solitary government

ad in it. What an amazing coincidence! It just so happened that during that

previous period they had an awful lot of things to tell car drivers, but immediately

after the election they had nothing to say to car drivers. That's the way it

is in B.C. It's absolutely scandalous.

Mr. Chairman, there was another jurisdiction in Canada that was somewhat similar

— Ontario. And Ontario, even with that, couldn't pull it off this last time.

So let's hope that the minister will see the error of his ways and try to bring

his government to a point of....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Jumping in bed with whom?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Liberals in Ontario.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I thought you were talking about something local. I'm

sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the vote please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, will the minister answer some of these questions?

Will he give an undertaking to answer the questions on the order paper pertaining

to the information that the member for Victoria sought last time?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think I'd have to take the order

paper now to see if I have any outstanding questions. I'm not aware of any that

are outstanding on the order paper right now. There are some questions there

on the order paper.... The questions you listed, I'm sure you realize, would

involve considerable time on the part of someone to do the research and get

the answers. You know, it's very costly. In my opening remarks on my estimates

here I've attempted to convey to you that we've become more efficient and cost-effective

in the Ministry of Government Services so that we can deliver more programs

to the people in the fields of culture, sports and heritage, you know. I think

that's what the people of British Columbia want. They don't want people to spend

all their time doing research on questions such as the member has put forward.

The member has put up four questions that will take many hours of time of public

servants. You have to realize that we've cut.... Since GIS has been in place,

we've cut staff very dramatically in the area of advertising and in various

ministries of government. When we did the consolidation, we eliminated 85 positions,

from 200 to 115 positions, and GIS itself, which started originally with 67

positions, is now down to 58 positions. We've had savings on behalf of the taxpayers

of British Columbia of over $2 million a year by

[ Page 6572 ]

making it leaner and more cost-effective in government. I think the member should applaud that.

Then you mention the name Aspinall. I want to say that Aspinall does

not have a contract or a subcontract with government, so that destroys

your argument there.

MR. COCKE: What do you pay him for?

HON. MR. CHABOT: He is not working for government. I indicated a little earlier that Frank Ogden's not working for government either.

But you know, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brings up

ancient history about certain advertising expenditures. My estimates

really don't pertain to ancient history. My estimates are related to

the projected expenditures of my ministry between April 1, 1985, and

April 1, 1986. So I don't really have that information in front of me.

If the member for New Westminster is really interested in getting some

of those really old questions answered, I think the proper place to

attempt to get that information is on the order paper.

[11:45]

You know, I could have brought in some Dunsky vouchers and so forth,

and attempted to embarrass the government and so forth. You know, they

talk about.... These socialists are all alike. They're all alike. They

say, oh, how terrible it is, how tragic it is to have an advertising

budget. But they talk out of both sides of their mouth at once, because

one has only to look at socialist Manitoba — in a matter of four years

from the time of the Conservatives, the advertising budget has

increased by 158 percent. And they say they're against advertising.

Interjection.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh no, I'll tell you what they spent $1.1

million on in 1983-84: to advertise their job fund and to attempt to

convey to the people how well things are doing in Manitoba. If you read

the Globe and Mail this morning, you'll see that two major

garment industries are moving out of Winnipeg to Toronto because they

can't stand the repressive trade union affiliation with that

government. They find there's too close a link between the government

of Manitoba and the trade union movement, and the change in laws in the

province has virtually killed the garment industry in Manitoba.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are in Committee of Supply,

vote 60 with respect to the estimates of the Provincial Secretary and

the administrative responsibilities of that minister, not those of

other provinces.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I was just making comparisons between the

criticism that I get on advertising here and what really takes place in

socialist Manitoba. But I did forget to say how many jobs are going to

be lost with those two garment factories moving to Toronto — 1,000.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've pretty well answered the questions put to me.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the questions that I read have been standing

on the order paper in my name addressed to that minister for two years. "Are

they still on?" he says. That is the contempt this minister has for the

people of this province. It's fine and dandy that every household in this

province has to spend $22 on government advertising, and when questions are

put on the order paper so that taxpayers can know where that money was spent

and on what and to whom, he has such contempt he doesn't even answer.

MR. BARNES: He makes jokes.

MR. HANSON: And makes jokes. Mr. Chairman, it's despicable.

We have a government whose propaganda arm is out of control — $20

million in government advertising; $1.25 million on polling in the last

six years. It's incredible. And do they disclose the results? Do they

disclose the questionnaires? No. It's all secret. The people of this

province have a right to know, certainly when Kinsella is telling the

people of this province that they were manipulated in the last

election. You deliberately manipulated them. And for that, Mr.

Chairman, they are going to throw you out of office in the next

provincial election.

I wish, Mr. Chairman, that the people of the province could have a

television camera over my shoulder and over my colleagues' shoulders

when we're viewing vouchers, because they would see the tremendous

waste of money that is being spent on trying to bolster the image of a

government that is really against the people of this province. That's

why we have the terrible unemployment, that's why our economy.... And

you are directly responsible for it. Your restraint program is

responsible for the lack of business confidence in this province.

That's why people aren't spending; that's why we don't have a

consumer-led recovery, Mr. Chairman: because of the bills introduced by

that minister and the propaganda war that he's waging against the

people of this province, paid for by the taxpayers, and yet he hides

under a rock. He won't let them know. He's feeding every advertising

company in this province — every TV and radio spot.

What we need, Mr. Chairman, are guidelines to protect the public

against a government that abuses the taxpayers' money in advertising

and polling. We need guidelines to severely limit government

advertising.

He talks about Manitoba. Look at the Manitoba unemployment rate: it's half of what it is in British Columbia.

The advertising budget has quadrupled since we were in power in this

province. We need guidelines to prevent the government from placing

advertising on radio, television and newspapers that would either

directly or indirectly promote the political party of the government

members. Government is supposed to govern for all the people. They're

not part of this Kinsella manipulation. The people of Ontario smartened

up, and the people of B.C. are going to throw you out in the next

provincial election. There should be guidelines to prevent the use of

government logos on party propaganda. There should be guidelines

prohibiting advertisements by government organizations. The letterhead

of the Crown is something we can all be proud of.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: God! There should be guidelines prohibiting advertisements by government organizations during provincial election campaigns.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very ominous trend in this province that has been happening over the last few years. We

[ Page 6573 ]

have government information services operating as

an arm of the Social Credit party. We have intimidation. And I say it's

intimidation, because government agents want to serve the people of

this province, not the Social Credit cabinet. When we've got them

monitoring the TV news and feeding it back and being instructed to make

sure they watch it, and we've got other people on contract all over the

place monitoring the news and seeing if cabinet ministers' news clips

are carried, etc., etc., what kind of a government is this anyway?

Look at B.C. Government News

itself, that propaganda rag that's paid for by the taxpayers. A million

copies were distributed in February, 1985. This issue was mailed to

every person in B.C. The mailing costs alone were $160,000 — just to

tell British Columbia what a good job they are doing as a government.

The B.C. Government News is strictly a partisan piece of political propaganda by the government.

We are in a depression. The people want leadership. And that

minister there has been responsible, along with the Premier and the

advisers around the Premier, for the confrontation that has resulted in

our dismantled economy.

He talks about textile plants in Manitoba. There's not a day that

goes by in British Columbia without a plant closure and bankruptcies.

While we have the bankruptcies, we have raw log exports and raw fish

exports and raw copper exports. It's an incompetent government, Mr.

Member.

I'd like, Mr. Speaker, to ask the minister a question. On March 13

the Premier of this province responded to a question that I asked him,

taken on notice, about what firms were receiving public money for

polling. He responded by saying: "Were any polling services performed

by Decima Research — and this is for the government? The answer is

yes." That is what the Premier said in this House. And that minister

says no. I wrote to the comptroller-general asking for the Decima

vouchers. He wrote back: he could not find them. In his answer, Public

Affairs International, no, because it's not a polling firm. Well, I

found Public Affairs vouchers attached to McKim vouchers. So his answer

in the House was wrong. There may be not a polling firm, and in that

sense his answer is correct. But we have not had tabled in this House

those documents, so we don't know and the public doesn't know. We

should know and the public should know.

Goldfarb Consultants: yes. Canadian Gallup: no. Canadian Facts: no,

not in this fiscal year; they had been there in earlier years.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada