1984 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4001 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. air ambulance service. Mr. Cocke –– 4001

Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. Mr. Hanson –– 4002

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Macdonald

Fraser valley bus service. Mr. Rose –– 4003

Affordable housing at B.C. Place. Mr. Blencoe –– 4003

Kwantlen College employment alternatives program for women. Mrs. Dailly –– 4003

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

On vote 54: minister's office –– 4004

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Cocke

Royal assent to bills –– 4023

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we are honoured and very

delighted to have with us in your gallery today some very distinguished

visitors from our good and friendly North American distant neighbour,

the Republic of Mexico. I would very much like to acknowledge,

introduce and welcome to our province and assembly His Excellency

Ambassador José Andrés de Oteyza, Senator Delgado Ramírez, Senator Mariano Palacios Alcocer, Senator Miguel Borge Martín, Representative Arturo Martinez Legorreta, Representative Manuel Osante López, Representative Enrique León Martínez, and Mr. Francisco Alcala Sanchez.

I would like to add, in Español, and very poquito Español: como

buenos vecinos, solamente separados en el centro por nuestro cormún

amigo, los Estados Unidos, les damos una gran bienvenida desde el Pacífico Noroeste. Hay muchas personas en la Colombia Británica que tienen grandes lazos e intereses con la hermana Rep ú blica de México. Esperamos que ustedes tendr á n una placentera y productiva visita en nuestra provincia. Esperamos que ustedes volver á n alg ú n día.

MR. NICOLSON: Señor Presidente, en el cuerpo legislativo, en nombre de mi partido, el Nuevo Partido Democrático, doy la bienvenida al estimado embajador, los senatores y los deputados.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to introduce some friends in your

gallery. One of the gentlemen is a former president of the Vancouver

and District Baseball Umpires' Association, and he was also one of the

first umpires to appear under the dome of B.C. Place when the oldtimers

had their game there. He's also a Hall of Famer citizen of North

Vancouver and a scout for the New York Yankees. I see all these young

people sitting in the gallery today, and I guess.... One of his great

functions in the past year for me, as a good friend, was that he was

also my campaign manager — Mr. Don Schwery. Next to Don is a friend of

his from Vancouver, Ron Crimeni, and I would like the House to welcome

him also.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a New

Democratic Party candidate of the last election from the great riding

of Okanagan North, Mr. Lyle McWilliam, and his wife. I certainly wish

Lyle was on the floor of this House with us, and I would like the House

to join us in welcoming him.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, the spring break, which allows a lot of our

young British Columbians to come to the Legislature, is really a good thing.

Today I am fortunate in having a whole gaggle of them in your gallery. I would

like to introduce them to this House. First of all there is Mr. Al Jamieson

and his wife, Jill, who, just in passing, happens to be the person who runs

my constituency office, and their two children, Jamie and Jennifer. I would

also like to introduce to the House Dr. Norman Cook, his wife, Beverley, and

their children Alan, Matheson and Ann. Last but not least, may I introduce two

of my grandchildren, Jason and Jennifer Stow, and I would ask the House to make

them all welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

House to welcome the acting director of the Pacific Rim program for

Vancouver Community College, Langara campus, who is a good friend: Mr.

Gordon Jones, who is in the House today with his wife Kay.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today are a couple of

dear friends of mine from Smithers. I wonder if the House would join me

in welcoming Ed and Helen Person.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, a group of students from

Fraser Valley College are in the gallery today with their instructor.

Please make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to make welcome Edith Gark, a friend and supporter of mine from Campbell River.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a man

who I believe would be very typical of the seniors of Vancouver South.

He happens to be retired; he happens to teach art at the bilingual

school; he does volunteer work at Pearson Hospital. He is a good

citizen and a good man. His name is Mike Davies. Would the House please

welcome him.

MR. STRACHAN: At the outset and on behalf of the hon. Davie

brothers, former Premiers of the province, I'd like to thank the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) for the expensive but good

political science lesson. I would also like to bring to the attention

of the House and introduce Mr. David Peterson, who is Clerk of the

House for the province of New Brunswick. Hon. members, I had the best

lobster feed in my life in Mr. Peterson's back yard. Welcome to British

Columbia, David.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, none of us would be in this

room without the kind of hard workers that we all have in our

constituencies, I would like to introduce a couple of people from

Aldergrove who work hard for the process of democracy, Ralph and Merle

Snell; with them are Deanne and Julie. Please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C. AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the

Minister of Health. What steps has the minister taken to bring our air

ambulance service into conformity with Ministry of Transport

regulations?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would be pleased to respond to specifics

with respect to that. As the member would know, the Ministry of Health

utilizes aircraft which are the responsibility of the Ministry of

Transport. I presume the member is speaking about technical matters

relating to licensing and so on, rather than the medical aspect of

that. If the member has specific questions, I'd be most pleased to

determine what those answers are through the Ministry of Transport.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll direct the question to the Minister of Transport.

Another question. The provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan — three provinces that have air ambulance

[ Page 4002 ]

programs — have brought their air transport service

into conformity with Ministry of Transport regulations. Is the minister

taking steps to bring our air ambulance service into that kind of

conformity.

HON. A. FRASER: I am not aware that we are not in conformity

with any regulations that exist. I am not aware what Manitoba and

Saskatchewan have done. I would say to that member we have the finest

air-ambulance service in the west, and flights fly, night and day, all

over this province — regardless of weather. They've never had an

accident. I don't know what they're not in conformity of.

MR. COCKE: I have the same kind of information that the

Minister of Transport has, and that's when you charge fares you conform

to the Ministry of Transport regulations. There are a number of people

questioning this at the present time. I am not arguing that the

air-ambulance service is not important, good or whatever. I am

wondering whether or not we are in any kind of jeopardy as a result of

the problem of conformity.

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: I know that we are not in any non-conformity

regarding air regulations, but I believe you are referring to

complaints made because we charge, and I'll take the question as notice.

PACIFIC COACH LINES LTD.

MR. HANSON: A question to the same minister with respect to

Pacific Coach Lines. Several companies that bought buses and other

equipment during the liquidation of Pacific Coach Lines have applied to

the Motor Carrier Commission for licences to run these buses on the old

PCL routes. Has the minister issued any instructions to the Motor

Carrier Commission that Maverick Coach Lines, Victoria Gray Line and

PCL 1984 Ltd. are required to maintain employment and route services as

a condition of the licence?

HON. A. FRASER: I have issued no instructions. Licences of

all types are administered and issued by the Motor Carrier Commission,

and I'm sure that they'll look after all the things that your.... I'm

further advised that all routes will be covered by private-enterprise

applications, the Fraser Valley, ferry service and so on, by the April

1 switchover.

MR. HANSON: Supplementary Mr. Speaker. At the time of the

liquidation, Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. had some 350 operating drivers

and support staff. The three buyers of PCL equipment have indicated

that they intend to hire fewer than 50 of these staff. What steps has

the minister taken to prevent the loss of 350 jobs providing

transportation services on Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley?

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, I don't accept those figures —

I'd have to check that out. I haven't taken any specific steps. There

are going to be lots of jobs available under the new franchises.

MR. HANSON: A further supplementary. Is the minister advising

the House that he will be making no guarantees to those employees that

they will have any security of employment with the companies that have

acquired the PCL services?

HON. A. FRASER: I have no authority to do anything like that.

MR. STUPICH: My question is to the same minister.

Twenty-eight private sector commission agents have been notified that

their contracts are cancelled because of the PCL liquidation and sale.

That's in the Parksville area, I believe, or at least in the Comox

riding. Has the minister directed the Motor Carrier Commission to

prevent this downsizing of the private sector through its licensing

procedure?

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is no.

MR. STUPICH: Is the minister taking the position that these

local business people, such as the K&R store in Parksville in the

Comox riding, will receive no consideration from this government for

their years of service, and that the government will take no action

regarding arbitrary termination of their contracts?

HON. A. FRASER: We are going to instruct that they should deal with the private sector people.

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the same minister. At the

Vancouver bus terminal on Cambie Street, which is now being taken over

by a Greyhound lease, there are 68 PCL employees, and 55 of them have

been told they will not have a job. Was there nothing in the sales

arrangements that were made to privatize PCL to protect the employees

in that kind of a situation?

HON. A. FRASER: I didn't have anything whatsoever to do with that arrangement.

MR. MACDONALD: Then I'll ask the Minister of Human Resources,

who has heard the question. Is there any protection for these people?

They're now going from a regular job in Vancouver at the headquarters

on Cambie Street, and 55 of them are going to be out of work and

displaced because Greyhound now has the lease. Did the government do

anything to protect those jobs in terms of the privatization?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The sale of Pacific Coach Lines to

private ownership will put it in the hands of several different owners

after April 1. Nothing but negotiations regarding servicing, safety and

the sale of assets were taken into consideration. As in all sales of

businesses, it is up to the person who is then the master of their own

particular responsibility — that is, the ownership of the company — to

make those decisions and to work out an agreement with the employees.

We expect that will happen and, of course, the onus is on those

businesses to do that. That is not only an implied onus, but the result

of business and employee relationships in a time-honoured way for many,

many years.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister look into it and see whether anything could be done to protect these 55 people?

[ Page

4003 ]

FRASER VALLEY BUS SERVICE

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Transportation. He may wish to ping-pong it over to the Minister of

Human Resources, I don't know. He's free to do that.

This concerns bus passenger service in the Fraser Valley. The Motor

Carrier Commission, as I understand it, has licensed Cascade Charter to

operate the bus passenger service formerly provided by PCL. I'd like to

ask whether the minister required Cascade Charter to guarantee bus

internal service, before granting the new licence.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't direct

anybody. Anybody can apply for that licence; it was available. If and

when the licence is issued, the conditions are attached to that licence

by the Motor Carrier Commission.

MR. ROSE: One of the things that should be asked is whether

they are attached. If so, is the minister really telling us that he did

nothing, in the granting of the new licences, to protect the existing

services in the bus depots, as well as the service on the runs?

HON. A. FRASER: I would guess — but I don't know this — that

the Motor Carrier Commission looked into all those facets, because

they're interested in the service to the general public. I think they

would take that all....

Regarding the conditions being issued, I don't think the licence has actually been issued yet. That's my answer to that.

MR. ROSE: It was granted on March 21.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that the

Motor Carrier Commission has not said they have issued any licences. I

think you're referring to the superintendent's office, who said they

had been sent to the Motor Carrier Commission. As of now I'm not aware

that any formal licences have been issued.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT B.C. PLACE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the minister responsible

for B.C. Place. On Thursday, February 10, 1983, the Premier announced a

financing scheme to make homes in B.C. Place more affordable. He said

homeowner payments covering principal, interest and taxes would not

exceed 25 percent of income. On March 16, 1984, the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) during the estimates said this

proposal has not been accepted. I'm wondering if the minister

responsible for B.C. Place will advise why this oft-repeated Socred

election promise has been killed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I think "killed" is a terrible

word, especially for a proposal that may go ahead but is under review

at the present time. Until such time as the government has decided its

disposition, it will remain under review.

MR. BLENCOE: It would appear that one minister doesn't know what

the other is doing. We have the minister responsible for Housing saying it is

no longer going ahead, and we've got the minister responsible for B.C. Place

saying it is going ahead. Let's see if we can get some uniformity on this

particular issue. In view of the fact that this particular election promise

appears to have been reneged — considering the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing's statement the other day — what action has been taken to provide

affordable housing for families at B.C. Place?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, this question could take some

time to answer. We have only recently completed the estimates of the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, where this question

might be more appropriately put. However, there are several things

under consideration. My colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing responded to you regarding specific projects of their ministry,

not necessarily proposals put forward by B.C. Place.

MR. BLENCOE: On March 16 the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing said he would be taking no action on an emergency proposal from

Vancouver city council for the provision of 4,000 units of low-cost

housing in the vicinity of the Expo 86 site. In view of the minister's

answer that he is taking no action because, "We are not involved in the

Expo site," what action has the minister responsible for B.C. Place

decided to take?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the member doesn't listen, or

he chooses not to hear. The matter is under consideration, There are

several things being considered and as they are in a position to go

forward, we'll bring them forward. He'll be the very first to know, if

he's listening.

KWANTLEN COLLEGE EMPLOYMENT

ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM FOR WOMEN

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister

of Labour. The employment alternatives program for women at Kwantlen

College has provided a very successful bridging program for women

seeking employment, one which was featured in Social Credit

pre-election campaign ads. I'm sure the Minister of Labour is aware of

it. Is the minister aware, however, that this program is facing

elimination?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I hope that, as Minister of Labour, he

will look into it on behalf of all the women who have enjoyed this

program. Will the minister bring back to the House affirmation that

this program will be continued? Yes? Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask leave to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, one of the very fine

interns that serve our caucus has his father in the precinct today

visiting various people, and I am pleased to

[ Page 4004 ]

tell you that he is in the gallery now. Would the House please welcome Mr. Davies and his son, Matt.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 54: minister's office, $190,839.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I should refrain from

uttering a few opening remarks. It appears to me that everybody wants

to support my estimates without debate. If that is the case, I will

relinquish my place and allow the votes to go by. I see one little

fellow over there who's hesitant to allow that to take place. Under the

circumstances, I want to say that it is again a pleasure and an

opportunity for me to elaborate on the activities of this ministry, for

which I've had administrative responsibility for only a short period of

time. I've been in charge of this ministry only 18 months. This is only

the second opportunity I've had to appear before the House to justify

the proposed expenditure of public dollars.

[2:30]

The Provincial Secretary's ministry has a heavy involvement in

cultural activities. The cultural wealth of a society is one of its

most valuable natural resources. The cultural variety and vitality that

we have developed in British Columbia make this a particularly

rewarding province to live and work in or to visit. This ministry

contributes to the cultural life of the province more than any other

single agency. Through recreation and sports programs, cultural and

heritage services, and a world-renowned provincial museum, our ministry

provides the people of British Columbia with an opportunity to learn

and develop through participation in sports and fitness activities, the

arts and the rich heritage of this province.

In the estimates for 1984-85 the administrative costs of delivering

these programs have been reduced. But the special-purpose funds which

provide direct assistance for individual artists and athletes, as well

as development grants for arts organizations and sports, remain in

excess of $50 million. In other words, we're delivering virtually the

same level of programs, services and funding, but at a reduced

administrative cost. This increased efficiency is the direct result of

the government's restraint measures.

As an example of the kind of results we're achieving in our

investment in sports and culture, I cannot do better than to refer to

the B.C. Games just completed this month in Fort St. John. Thousands of

dedicated volunteers in that small but dynamic northern community

orchestrated one of the finest sports events in the history of this

province. The B.C. Games attracted thousands of participants — in fact,

2,250 participants from every comer of British Columbia. They left

behind a legacy of good sportsmanship and healthy competition, and

stimulated the local economy as well.

In May the community of Penticton will be striving to match the

accomplishments of Fort St. John, as it hosts the B.C. Festival of the

Arts. Like the games, the festival gives British Columbians of all ages

the opportunity to participate, to push themselves to higher levels of

achievement and to make their mark. By the time it is over, the B.C.

Festival of the Arts and the many regional playdowns that lead to it

will have involved more than 90,000 people. Each of those 90,000

individuals will take away an invaluable experience. The festival

itself will involve some 1,500 participants in competitions, master

classes and performances, and through media coverage and direct

audience exposure will generate heightened awareness of the arts.

On the Government Services side of the ministry, briefly, the

amalgamation of the personnel agencies of government and the reduction

of staff in ministry personnel branches will result in a leaner, more

productive personnel machine. There is no question that the

streamlining of internal government programs must accompany, indeed

must lead, the streamlining of public programs. We are determined to

get maximum efficiency out of the government services provided by the

Provincial Secretary's ministry. These estimates take us another step

closer to making government not the bloated bureaucracy it has

sometimes been accused of being, but a model of efficiency for private

as well as public sector administration.

I look forward to any questions that might be put forward to me in

the next few minutes during which my estimates will be on the floor of

the House.

MR. HANSON: It's interesting to note in the minister's

remarks that he didn't take any credit for having this House sit for 24

hours a day last year to move toward his so-called downsizing of the

public service. He didn't take any credit for that at all. He talked

about art and his responsibility in art. That minister is renowned in

artistic circles in this province for referring to the B.C. collection

of art as garbage art. This particular minister has no real interest in

the arts or in the cultural heritage of the province.

It was interesting that in his remarks he really deflected from his

major responsibility, which is the public service in this province. The

public sector is his baby, Mr. Chairman. He has caused more personal

anguish — beyond any other minister probably in recent history in this

province — than any other individual in the history of this House.

Mr. Chairman, we know that when Bill 3 was introduced in this House,

a shockwave went through 200,000 public service families in this

province, and that particular shockwave is still reverberating through

the economy. People are not spending money, because their job security,

whether it's in a hospital, a school or in direct employ of the

government, has not been resolved. They are totally insecure not only

in Victoria but in every administrative centre in the province of

British Columbia.

What we have facing us is something in the order of another 1,100

job cuts — flesh-and-blood individuals with families, with the

necessities of paying their mortgages, putting groceries on the table,

looking after their own needs and providing for their own livelihood.

Did we hear that minister in his remarks about his responsibilities

talking about the fact that there were going to be 1,100 more layoffs

in the public service?

I'm going to be giving you specifics shortly, Mr. Minister. But

we're having cutbacks in the people who are the custodians of our

forest resource — the people's forest resource. The people who monitor

air quality in this province, the people who monitor soil quality, the

people who work in the preservation of agricultural land and people who

are providing all sorts of support services in the government are

going. What is happening is that it's being contracted out to private

contractors, which in the long term costs the public more. The quality

of the work oftentimes is not of the same calibre. It causes

disruptions and greater unemployment.

[ Page 4005 ]

The philosophy of this government is to turn over the activity of

government to the private sector, to try to make money in areas that

traditionally were the responsibility of the public service — providing

the best possible guaranteed standard of care and service in various

areas. The trend of this government is to create more massive

unemployment at a time when we are having a recession. When the

government could play a role in stabilizing employment, they're going

in the opposite direction and creating more unemployment, more

insecurity and more lack of confidence in the economy of our province.

Let's just quickly run through some of the major cuts that the

government has planned before this House. It's interesting to note that

the expenditures that assist the cabinet ministers in travelling in

comfort to the far corners of the earth are increased. There is more

money for that particular activity. Let's have a look at how much. In

the Provincial Secretary's budget there is a vote called "protocol and

special services" which includes cabinet expenses and ministerial

travel. It is increased by a quarter of a million dollars. Those 20

individuals who sit on the government benches are the government. This

isn't the government over here; this is the opposition. The

back-benchers are just the trained seals. They just vote when these

people tell them to vote. That little group of 20 people who are the

government of British Columbia have made available to themselves an

additional quarter of a million dollars, in addition to their regular

travel and expense budget, so that they can travel in comfort to the

far corners of the earth — $243,045.

The Legislative Library here, which is the el primo library of

British Columbia, has had its budget cut back marginally, even at a

time when there is still some inflation. Book costs are going up, but

the support revenue for the provincial library in this building has

been cut by $25,000. The legislative building here has been cut by

$750,000. The maintenance of this building, which is the property of

the people of the province and the law-making chamber of this province,

has been cut by $750,000. Some of that would be reflected in a transfer

of staff to BCBC.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's wrong with that?

MR. HANSON: If it hadn't been for the New Democratic Party

government in 1973 putting this building back together, it would have

fallen down by now. The Socred government for the previous 20 years had

let this place fall into disrepair; there was plaster and lath falling

off and the roof was leaking. The finest tradesmen in this whole

province have put this building back together again, and it was the New

Democratic Party government that said that this is a jewel and a

treasure for the people of all of the province. And now this government

has transferred those journeyman tradesmen, who do this fine

plasterwork — this isn't drywall, this is hand-done plasterwork,

hand-applied gold and various kinds of paints, and so on.... It's a

treasure that belongs to the people of this province, and it should be

maintained for ever and a day. Yet this government is now transferring

those people, breaking up this crew and sending them off to various

other government buildings when they should be kept as a crew to do

public works for the benefit of all British Columbians heritage

restoration work and so on.

Vote 56 is what they call the government information bureau. To the

average individual "government information" sounds innocent enough, but

what it is is a propaganda organization within the government. A Mr.

Doug Heal is in charge, and this is the money he has to spend to make

the image of the government presentable to the public so that they can

guarantee the re-election of those people on that side of the House. It

goes to $18.9 million, assessed by that minister to protect the image

of the government. At the same time as they take $50 a month off the

disabled and deny the Crane Library at UBC $39,000 for materials for

the blind, they are able to spend $18.9 million on glossy brochures to

try to convince the people of the province that they are acting on

their behalf. It is absolutely scandalous. We have 200,000 people

unemployed in British Columbia and 250,000 people on social assistance.

That's a staggering figure. A quarter of a million people, in our small

population, are on social assistance, and yet they can find $19 million

for glossy brochures, radio clips, TV advertising, Lotto and various

kinds of games advertising, and so on, when that money could be used to

provide meaningful employment so people could look after their own

families.

[2:45]

We heard the minister talking about culture and heritage. Let's just

take a look. The money allocated to culture, heritage and recreation

was very modest in the first place. This government has never had any

high priority on the heritage resources — both historic and

archaeological — of this province. That particular vote is cut from

$19.5 million to $17.8 million — a close to $2 million cut in heritage,

recreation and culture. The implications of this very modest saving are

severe in terms of the level of service and the subsidy provided.

For example, anyone who has ever visited the Provincial Museum is

proud of it. It's a beautiful institution, it's free, it's a fine

educational institution and it has some of our finest display people

who are able to take information about the natural, human and

biological history of this province and transform that into displays

which are a tribute to all of us. We're all proud to take friends

through those displays and say: "Isn't this a great provincial museum,

which belongs to all of us?" The Provincial Museum cut implies ten

positions and is cut from $5.3 million in 1983-84 to $4.8 million. So

in heritage conservation there has been a $553,000 or 24.3 percent cut

in spending since 1982-83.

Let me just tell you something about heritage conservation. Most

British Columbians think that British Columbia is a new province in

terms of having been recently colonized by people of European or Asian

descent in the last 100 or 150 years. It's not a new province at all.

People have lived in this province for 10,000 or more years. The only

reason people think it's a new province is that most British Columbians

are not given an opportunity to understand the richness and importance

of the 10,000 years of Indian history prior to European contact. Do you

know, Mr. Chairman — seeing that the minister mentioned heritage

matters — that only 10 percent of the heritage archaeological sites

which are the remnants of that 10,000 years of history are still left?

Only 10 percent of all of the known archaeological sites in British

Columbia are still partially or completely intact. The rest have been

bulldozed. They've had roads built on them, houses, dams, forestry

roads, clear-cut logging and so on. I'm pointing out that of the 10,000

years of history that is locked in the ground.... The Indian people of

this province had no written history; they had oral history. It was

passed by word of mouth from generation to generation. The only

information that is available to the Indian people of this

[ Page 4006 ]

province other than their own languages, which are dying and which this government has offered no assistance to protect....

I might just add that the Indian languages of British Columbia...we

have the most diverse linguistic heritage of any place in North

America. We have more Indian languages in British Columbia than all of

Canada, in proportion to our area. We have 30 Indian languages within

our boundaries. When I hear that minister talking about heritage and

culture, saying that his ministry does more for heritage and culture,

it is comical, it is tragic, it is a travesty. We have 10 percent of

the Indian heritage left in terms of archaeological sites, which are

being destroyed every day. The Indian languages are disappearing as the

elders who understand the languages die. The languages are

disappearing, the culture is being obliterated, and the government

ministry that could do something about it for the benefit of all of us

— it would enrich all of our lives — does nothing.

I have, on four occasions in this House, introduced a private

member's bill asking for a small institute to be established to protect

the Indian languages of this province — to record them, to offer them

in the curricula of the school system. In places like Cowichan, where

there happens to be a very large number of Cowichan people, they are

not given the opportunity to learn their own Indian language. They

can't even team it in school. It's possible now in some schools and

colleges to learn Mandarin Chinese or Cantonese or Greek or something

else from a European or Asian area, but the indigenous people of this

province, who are asking only for the right to learn their own

language, are denied that right. What would it take? We could take a

little bit. We could take two glossy brochures of Doug Heal. We could

take $200,000 or $300,000 out of Mr. Doug Heal's budget and give that

to a board with Indian people on it, with linguists, academics and

government appointees. We could say: "We have a commitment to you, the

200,000 people of Indian ancestry of British Columbia, for you to have

the right to learn your own language." What's wrong with that?

MR. R. FRASER: You're talking about the wrong ministry.

MR. HANSON: I'm not talking about the wrong ministry. Take a look at the estimates book. It's that ministry.

That's just one tiny thing that this government could do that would

be of benefit to the people of this province. It would be meaningful.

Anyone who's travelled in British Columbia beyond the lower mainland or

Victoria knows there are pockets of large Indian communities that

desperately want to know their own culture. The provincial government

and the federal government love to gather up Indian artifacts and take

them off to world expositions, take them off to Paris, to Edinburgh,

and let the people of the world have a look. They're in awe; they are

staggered by the cultural accomplishments of the Indian people of this

province. The Kwakiutl people, the Haida, the Simshan, the Salish, the

Nootka, have wonderful cultural achievements. These symbols, this

provincial museum that has.... I don't know the number of people who go

through that museum in a year but it must be close to a million; it's

in the hundreds of thousands. They go through and they say: "Isn't that

wonderful!" At the same time, what do the Indian people of this

province get out of it? They don't have a chance to protect the

heritage resources, their archaeological sites. They don't have an

opportunity to interpret them to themselves and to the people of the

province. They don't have the chance to build it into the school

curriculum. They don't have a chance to learn their own language and

salvage it. Three languages are already extinct.

It's very hard for people of European or Asian ancestry to

understand that.... All of us in this chamber know that if we are of

language is alive and well in some other place in the world. But the

Indian people are sitting in their own homes watching their own

cultures die. When such-and-such an elder passes away, that language is

no longer available to them. All they need are recording devices where

people could come and learn how to transcribe their own language and a

place where the elders could come and receive some modest payment.

Linguists earn salaries working at universities to study Indian

languages, but the Indian people themselves.... An elder who has in his

own mind his entire 10,000 years of history in terms of his language,

culture and what he wants to convey to his own people has no facility

available to him to do that. Why not? It's so small, and it would reap

such invaluable rewards. How many different ways, and how many

different times, do I have to say it? It's such a simple thing to do.

It's a non-partisan thing. Do something. Take a little of Doug Heal's

money and make it available to the Indian people of this province to

know their own history. When I hear that minister talking about all the

wonderful things that he does for culture, it's just ridiculous.

There has been a cut in cultural services — support for performing

arts, museums and galleries — from $1.5 million in 1982-83 to $794,000;

in other words, that's all the money available for heritage things,

which are relatively labour-intensive. I saw a news release today where

the Premier announced that there will be a road-widening program in his

riding of Okanagan South. Five million dollars will be made available

to lay asphalt and widen a road, which will employ 20 people for a

short span of time. At the same time, they cut three-quarters of a

million dollars from all of the museums and cultural bodies in the

province. They slashed their whole expenditure in half...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is your mother in the galleries?

MR. HANSON: My mother is deceased, if you don't mind.

...from $1.5 million to three-quarters of a million dollars. It

should be common knowledge to anyone in the gallery, to anyone in the

public, to anyone who takes the time to read between the lines in the

newspapers, that the Social Credit government doesn't care about

libraries, museums and heritage. The heritage budget of the province

has been cut by 25 percent since 1982-83.

Do you know what we get instead? Glossy little books that Doug Heal

puts out — like this. These cost a fortune. Do you know what's in this?

Nine pictures of Socred cabinet ministers. We have a picture of the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) on the first anniversary of a

multicultural women's organization. We don't have any content of any

program, but we have the picture of the Minister of Labour. Let's see:

we turn over and we go a whole page without a cabinet minister's

picture. Then we go to a picture of the Minister of Finance talking

about his trip to India. Over to page 6, and we've got a picture of the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Did you get a good look at

that picture,

[ Page 4007 ]

Mr. Chairman? That's the seatmate from the adjacent

riding. Then we go another couple of pages, and we see more pictures of

W.A.C. Bennett. Of course, they have to have pictures of Indian

cultural artifacts, beautiful masks. Here's a picture of a potlatch.

Yet is there any kind of serious support for the maintenance of Indian

culture? No.

On the back cover it says: "Living Heritage." You can subscribe to

it. Do you know what the living heritage of British Columbia is, Mr.

Chairman? Four pictures. We have the minister — that minister there —

the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of Education and the

Minister of Labour. That's the living heritage of British Columbia —

not the 10,000 years of Indian history, not the early colonization, not

the building of the CPR by the Chinese, not the history of the Japanese

people and their experiences during the Second World War, or early

colonization in the Peace River by German socialists, or early farming

activities in the Walhachin Valley, or recent events, or early

gold-mining activity other than Barkerville and Fort Steele, which seem

to suck up most of the dough.

We have a fortune being spent here that could go directly to little

museums — in Kamloops, in the Kootenays — so they could develop their

own regional heritage programs. What we have instead is this kind of

stuff. That's where the money's going. They cut three-quarters of a

million out of that budget, and three-quarters of a million is half of

the total amount.

[3:00]

Let's go through and see some of the other cuts. In cultural

services, the support of performing arts, museums and galleries has

been cut 47.8 percent. Grants have been cut from $667,000 in 1982-83 to

just $50,000. Expenditure from the B.C. Cultural Fund will be cut to

$1.5 million from $2 million last year, when there was an excess of

expenditure over revenue of $496,000.

The question of overexpenditure of funds from special purpose funds

in an election year. The thing is that money seemed to be available to

be spent just before the election. Would the government be playing

politics with the heritage and culture of the province? Just the same

is the Lottery Fund. The money expended in grants from the lottery

revenue is way down. It is way down because they spent a fortune — more

than they had — just before the election on the little giveaways for

political purposes, to get votes, and now it's not available.

I'd like to ask the minister to note on his pad.... I would like to

question him regarding the unevenness of the spending in relation to

the election and the pre-election advertising, with specific attention

to the lottery disbursements. I'd like to know where the lottery report

is. Where is the lottery report that indicates the grants by electoral

district?

With respect to the public sector labour issue, I want to ask him

about the melding of the Public Service Commission and the Government

Employee Relations Bureau. To the public it may sound like a lot of

bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, but in government we have on the one hand the

Public Service Commission, which is supposed to be hiring people based

on merit. The Public Service Commission is in charge of recruitment and

selection of competent people. The average British Columbia individual

who wants to work in the Ministry of Education, Health or Labour or

Provincial Secretary or something fills in an application and files it

with the Public Service Commission to be looked at on the basis of

merit in a selection process, to be hired by the government. That is

supposed to be independent from the politicians. Those are politicians

over there. They will tend to hire their political friends if they are

given an opportunity to do it, and certainly they can do that when they

circumvent the process and hire consultants; when they lay people off

or terminate them in the government service, they can then hire

somebody that they want to hire out of a consultant pool of money. They

can do this now without going to Treasury Board. I believe the figure

is $50,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time under the standing orders of the committee has elapsed, hon. member. Perhaps we could have an intervening speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer some of the

questions and dispel some of the innuendoes and misleading statements

made by that little member for Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. member. I find the word "misleading" offensive. However....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, if it's offensive to you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, just a minute, there's more. There was a

personal reference, and I'll have the minister withdraw the personal

reference to the other member. Please withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You mean "the little member for Victoria"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. A simple withdrawal will be fine.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is his title the first member for Victoria?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and withdraw the personal reference, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you don't like the word "misleading"? The erroneous information conveyed to the members of this House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, the personal reference will be withdrawn.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Which one is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference to the member that is personal and that I find offensive — just a simple withdrawal.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You've got me confused now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just simply withdraw, hon. member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll withdraw whatever you think I should withdraw. I'm an easy fellow to get along with.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to respond to some of the erroneous

utterances of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) in his

half-hour speech. First of all, I want to talk

[ Page 4008 ]

about layoffs in government. He has indicated that

1,100 will be laid off imminently in different ministries of

government. Any layoffs that take place are the sole responsibility of

each and every minister. I certainly recognize that there are FTEs that

are applied to the different ministries, and it is up to the minister

to determine the most effective way in which he will achieve that

objective.

The member talks about the question of contracting out, and is

attempting to lead the people of British Columbia to believe that that

is the mechanism used by the government to reduce the size of the

public service. That is not correct. In some instances we have done

some contracting out, but it is very minimal.

The member sounds to me as if he is the mouthpiece for the B.C.

Government Employees' Union. If he is, he should talk to them about the

misleading ad they put in the Vancouver Province last Sunday.

It's one which I thought was disgraceful, in poor taste and misleading,

in which they showed a crushed Conmac bus — which cost the lives of two

students from the greater Victoria area and injured many others — and

left the impression with the people of this province that we as a

government have abandoned inspection of buses and taxis in British

Columbia. Certainly we have closed down the motor vehicle testing

stations, but we have not stopped the ongoing inspection of buses and

taxis. If the member has any influence as a former member of the BCGEU,

I wish he would tell his brothers and sisters to stop using these

misleading, tasteless and dishonest ads in the newspapers.

MR. HANSON: Can't you pick up the phone?

HON. MR. CHABOT: He appears to be defending them. He was

talking about contracting out and using the BCGEU line. The member is

probably still a member of that union, and I wish he would tell the

leaders and his brothers and sisters to have a little more taste.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather bewildered. The member talks about the

travel vote and a quarter of a million dollars more being allocated for

travel by ministers. The information that I have here suggests that the

travel vote is down by $50,000, not up by $250,000, as has been

suggested by the first member for Victoria. An erroneous statement has

again been put forward on the matter of travel.

On the question of the maintenance crew, I recognize that the

upgrading of the building took place in 1973. But the thing that the

member fails to understand and is unwilling to accept is the fact that

the renovation of this particular building has come to an end. The work

is finished. We no longer need that maintenance crew or those skilled

craftsmen within the parliament buildings. What we have done is

transfer those employees. We didn't lay them off; we transferred them

over to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, where their skills can be used

and savings to the taxpayers achieved. It used to cost $700,000 a year

for that maintenance crew to look after this building. We have now

shifted those craftsmen across to the B.C. Buildings Corporation — a

very efficient move, I might say — and the craftsmen are all gratified

at having had the opportunity of moving over to BCBC. We've arranged

the contract with BCBC whereby we'll save $300,000 of the taxpayers'

money.

Are you suggesting for a moment that we should keep those people

here because they are expert craftsmen? I'm not going to deny they are;

I think they do excellent work. But when there's nothing further to do,

are you suggesting we keep them here? Is that the socialist philosophy?

It's not our philosophy. These dollars we're dealing with are dollars

that belong to the taxpayers of British Columbia. We have a

responsibility to ensure that those dollars are well used and not

wasted, as you are suggesting should take place. The point I'm making

is that the work is finished. That's a thing you must accept. The work

is over. From time to time, when some maintenance job does appear on

the horizon for this building, we can always call on those people,

because we have a contractual arrangement with the B.C. Buildings

Corporation. Those people are still available to us in a time of need,

but only in a time of need.

The member talks about the Indian language and its preservation. As

a former employee of the Provincial Museum, as an archaeologist himself

and as a former public servant, he must recognize that we have four

employees dealing strictly with native language matters. The member

must recognize that we have four employees who are working on the basis

of attempting to preserve and record the native languages of this

province. So we are doing our part as far as the preservation and

recording of native languages here in British Columbia are concerned.

We also make a contribution to the various Indian bands of British

Columbia through a perpetual fund. A minimum of $1.8 million is

conveyed each and every year to the Indian bands throughout British

Columbia for projects that they feel are meaningful and necessary on

their reserves. We as a ministry are actively involved in supporting

native affairs in British Columbia. In fact, starting about the middle

of May the museum will have some special events, in which there will be

a totem-pole raising, a potlatch and other matters of interest as far

as Indian culture is concerned. This ministry and the employees of this

ministry are actively involved in working on behalf of the native

heritage and its protection here in British Columbia.

The member talks about heritage conservation. He talks about the

very dramatic decrease in expenditures. We have our operating costs

this year, and the heritage conservation branch is up by 1 percent.

It's not up very much, but it's not down. He talks about how we're not

preserving 15,000 years of history in British Columbia. I would think

that our forefathers and those people who came before us settled in

certain areas of British Columbia. I think it's a logical pattern

established some considerable time ago that is being followed. I don't

know where you suggest that the people who come to British Columbia to

live should live. Should they live on the mountaintops? Are you

suggesting that all the valleys that were lived in many thousands of

years ago should be abandoned because there are some archaeological

sites there?

MR. HANSON: You're missing my point.

[3:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: The point is that just last year, Mr. Member, 600 archaeological sites were registered in British Columbia —

for 1983-84 — under the Heritage Conservation Act, which brings the

total of archaeological sites that have been established in British

Columbia to 15,500. If you ever get out of politics and go back to your

old profession of archaeology, maybe you'll have an opportunity to play

around and dig up some old bones in one or many of these 15,500 sites

that have been established by the heritage conservation branch. I think

this ministry is doing a tremendous job as far as the protection of our

heritage is concerned.

[ Page 4009 ]

The member talked about library services. There is essentially no

reduction. The amount of money in the budget for library services has

been reduced by $29,421 out of a budget of $7,670,690. We are making a

tremendous contribution. I want to say that I've received many letters

from various library groups throughout British Columbia commending the

government for having at least maintained the status quo as far as

funding for libraries throughout British Columbia is concerned. Of that

$7,670,000, $6,206,000 goes to maintain book grants to the B.C. library

system throughout the province. So the program is an excellent one that

provides a very important service throughout British Columbia, and

that's why it continues to maintain the kind of recognition that it's

had in the past.

I think that pretty well covers most of the questions.

MR. HANSON: I would like to ask the minister a specific

question. The protocol and special services vote, which includes

travel, is up by $250,000. I'd like to ask the minister why.

I'd also like to ask the minister why he is melding the Public

Service Commission and the Government Employee Relations Bureau, when

the Public Service Commission is independent in charge of selection and

recruitment, and the Government Employee Relations Bureau is charged

with negotiating the collective agreements between the various

bargaining agents within the government service, and the administration

of those contracts. Why is he putting them together? There is an

appearance that the Public Service Commission may lose its

impartiality, its arm's-length status from government, rather than

having, as we saw, direct involvement from the political level in the

bargaining process last time. We know that it ultimately is the duty of

cabinet or Treasury Board to authorize a settlement with its own

employees, but it is also structurally vital that the agency that

conducts the collective bargaining process on behalf of government does

it on the basis of its experience and professionalism, and not its

partisan chain-yanking that occurs when direct involvement at the

bargaining table takes place by politicians. We have always said that

the politicians should stay away from the bargaining table. They should

let the Government Employee Relations Bureau and its bargaining agents

hammer out the package that is required.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It isn't too much history to look back and see what kinds of

arrangements were developed during a three-year period when contracts

were signed for a three-year period at an annual increase of 8 percent,

when interest rates soared to 20 percent, and so on. There was never

any attempt made to renege on those agreements on the part of the

bargaining agents. Whether they were the professional association,

nurses, government employees or whatever, a contract was a contract. It

was lived with. Then, of course, we saw bills introduced in this House

that overruled collective agreements, that took away rights that were

bargained, that were determined, in terms of the rights of government

employees. That's why we were staying up 24 hours a day in this

chamber. What is the purpose of melding the GERB with the PSC? How will

the recruitment and selection processes, the safety portion, of the

Public Service Commission, the safety and training part...? How does

that meld with the Government Employee Relations Bureau? I would like

answers to those questions.

That minister claims to have no responsibility for the layoffs that

will be occurring, but that minister is in charge of the Public Service

Commission. His responsibility is the Government Employee Relations

Bureau that administers the collective agreements. The collective

agreements call for notice from the government whenever they're going

to make a major alteration in contracting out. Let's just take the

deputy sheriffs in the Ministry of the Attorney-General. There is an

article in the collective agreement, which is under the authority of

that minister, and the ministry apparently has refused to meet with the

bargaining agents to negotiate the question of contracting out the

duties of the deputy sheriffs. Here's that minister responsible for

GERB, GERB administers the contract, the deputy sheriff service under

the Attorney-General wants to contract it out — it's a private police

force and yet there is provision of an existing contract which is in

place. So I'd like an answer from the minister as to what his position

is with respect to the collective agreements that are in place,

particularly

article 32(13).

I gather from various press stories and news releases from the

minister's office and various articles that electrical inspection

services that are presently under government are to be transferred to

B.C. Hydro. I would like the minister to indicate, again, what is the

contract arrangement through GERB to allow this process to occur. What

is the cost saving to the taxpayer?

Again, in privatizing the work of the Forest Service coastal and

marine services, the truck and transport fleet is to be eliminated. The

function of that was to carry government workers, forestry equipment

and nursery seedlings to various locations for silvicultural and

reforestation purposes. That work is to be privatized.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that ministries have responsibility, but

that is the super minister in terms of the responsibility for

government service. He is the minister responsible for administering

the work, the scheduling of work, the work to be performed, the

conditions and all the aspects of work surrounding the government

service. GERB plays a major role in Crown corporations, in colleges, in

B.C. Systems Corporation and in administering all of these contracts,

whether they're under the Labour Code or whether they're under the

Public Service Labour Relations Act. That's a big, tough minister over

there in terms of his responsibilities.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a pussycat.

MR. HANSON: He is a pussycat. He's an absolute pushover for

the private contractors. They just say: "Here's a money maker. Give us

the plum." Contract it out, rather than having quality of service

performed within the public service in care and services that are

normally not available on a money-making, profit-making arrangement. So

let's hear a philosophical statement from the government, through that

minister, with respect to the advantage to having a private sheriff

service in the province of British Columbia. What is the advantage to

the province to have private food services in the jails? I raised that

once before, Mr. Chairman. I felt it would be a problem to contract out

the food services from the jails because I thought there'd be security

problems. They have in the government employ at the moment what they

call food service officers. These people are trained in security

matters. Now a private company called Acme Hot Foods is

[ Page 4010 ]

going to get a contract to provide food to

Wilkinson Road jail or to some camp situation or Oakalla. What

safeguards do the Acme employees have? What training do they have? What

security measures are in place? What prevention is there to ensure

there's not a hostage-taking? What safeguards are there to ensure that

the quality of the food is adequate, not to antagonize the residents?

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't

want to disturb the member's train of thought but, really,

hostage-takings in prisons and the quality of food in jails is not one

of my administrative responsibilities. Decisions on privatization or

contracting out of services not within this ministry are decisions made

by another minister. So for the sake of expediting the business of this

House, I think those questions could be better put to the proper

minister at the appropriate time.

MR. HANSON: The minister fails to recognize or acknowledge the fact that he is in charge of the public service of British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, really, Mr. Chairman — and I wish you

would recognize this point — the question of hostage-taking, the

question of the number of prison guards and whether the sheriff

services of the Ministry of the Attorney-General should be contracted

out is not a responsibility of this ministry. Certainly I recognize

that there is some correlation between decision-making in the Ministry

of the Attorney-General and this ministry because of the Government

Employee Relations Bureau that comes under this ministry. I can address

that particular issue. But the issue of the wisdom and the advisability

of whether we should go one way or the other as far as certain services

of government are concerned is left exclusively with certain ministers,

and I can't possibly answer for every minister of government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I think we

certainly appreciate what you have said. Perhaps the hon. member — I

know what he's getting at — could direct the questioning in such a way

that it would be more pertinent to the administrative function of the

Provincial Secretary's position.

[3:30]

MR. HANSON: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I'll take a run at it from a different angle.

The minister is responsible for the Public Service Commission. The

Public Service Commission is responsible for safety programs in the

government service. When he or one of his colleagues contracts out a

service normally provided by the government, such as the provision of

food in a jail, the Public Service Commission still has a

responsibility for safety in the public service. That is a public

institution. Does the minister follow? I'm asking him what provision he

has made for safety when he contracts out the food service in the

jails. A simple question. Okay?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Uh huh.

MR. HANSON: All right. That is a concern to many people — the

other people working in the institutions and so on. When a group of

employees from outside are brought in to perform a task within a

security area, I want to know of that minister — who has the

responsibility for safety — whether adequate provision is made for

safety in that contracting-out arrangement. That's a simple and

straightforward case.

The minister doesn't like to assume any responsibility for layoffs;

he says that's the sole responsibility of other ministries. But

clearly, establishment in the government service is essentially his

responsibility. Establishment is the size of the government service.

Let's just take a look at the plan for March 31 of this year. In

Highways, a loss of 355 more positions; 355 more families that rely on

the Ministry of Highways are going to be without their mortgage and

grocery payments in two weeks. Environment — 38 positions. Are these

positions — water quality, soil quality, monitoring air quality and so

on — redundant, wasteful positions? Absolutely not. Thirty-eight to go.

Attorney-General: 115 positions in the establishment of the government

service as of March 31. Forests: when millions of acres and thousands

of hectares — or, as my good friend from Atlin (Mr. Passarell) calls

them, hectacres — of forest land has been improperly or inadequately

restocked, the establishment of the public service is being reduced in

areas that provide for that kind of activity, either in nursery

capacity or in overseeing the company's responsibility to adequately

restock areas they cut. So what do we have? In two weeks' time, 500

more positions in the Ministry of Forests. Education: at a time when

education should be a top priority, 53 more positions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It

appears to me that the member is on a course of attempting to discuss

each and every ministry as far as staffing is concerned. The question

of whether the forest lands of British Columbia are adequately stocked

or not is not an administrative responsibility of mine. The member

might argue that the size the establishment of the various ministries

of government is my responsibility. That is not my responsibility. It

rests with Treasury Board. Many of the issues that are being raised

here have absolutely nothing to do with this ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was about to interrupt, hon. minister, when you rose to your feet to suggest to him that....

In fact, the Chair is having some difficulty with this line. I

thought at the outset of what the hon. member was saying that I could

relate it to the administrative functions of the Provincial Secretary,

but then it seemed to be drifting away, and we seemed to be talking

about other ministries over which the Provincial Secretary has

absolutely no jurisdiction at all. Perhaps the hon. member could be

just a little more careful in how he proceeds.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I understand your counsel. But at

the same time, I am pointing out to the minister that he does have

responsibility with respect to the transfer of employees from one area

to another. Under the Public Service Commission he is responsible for

the promotion, demotion or transfer of employees within the public

service. So when employees are moved from the Forest Service, and then,

through the collective agreements, they are burnping people in other

ministries, in other areas, that's his decision. Five hundred positions

are going to go from the Forest Service, and then those employees are

going to end up somewhere else, because if they've got any seniority

they're going to bump somebody further down the line. Mr. Chairman, do

you follow me?

[ Page 4011 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I follow you very well, and then we get to a

certain point where we seem to lose each other. Certainly I appreciate

the responsibility of this ministry for the Public Service Commission.

But when it comes down to individual positions within ministries, it

seems to me that there it kind of changes — it's no longer his direct

responsibility. I realize the Chair shouldn't enter into a debate or

argument, but I'm just trying to bring the debate back into line with

what we normally would discuss under estimates. Having done this many

times, hon. member, perhaps you would have no trouble in sticking to

the administration of the office of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. HANSON: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

It is easier for that minister to hide behind his 19 colleagues. He

has responsibility for the public service in total. He is the man in

charge of the public service. Any time promotion, demotion, transfer,

recruitment, selection, safety or other training occurs anywhere in the

government service, he says: "Oh, that's not mine. Go talk to the

Minister of Forests. Go talk to the Minister of Human Resources. Go

talk to the Minister of Education." He wants to hide. But I think he

should be big enough, because he comes from that Canal Flats–Invermere

area where people walk tall and talk straight.

HON. MR. CHABOT: And drive a half-ton too. They're good people.

MR. HANSON: You bet.

Mr. Chairman, he can't get away that easy because....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Easily, I'm sorry. It's a good thing the strap has been banned, Mr. Chairman.

Clearly that minister must take responsibility. When we're talking

about contracting out in the government service, the buck stops on his

desk and not just at the minister responsible. He has a role in the

transferring of those employees into another ministry; he has a role in

the impact of that decision. I'm asking legitimate questions about

whether when the contracting out takes place his responsibilities have

been covered. One of them is the safety angle. I think that's a

legitimate question, and we deserve to have a fair response. When we

talk about 38 positions in Human Resources coming to an end in child

care and special education support, he says: "That's my colleague the

Minister of Human Resources." What will happen is that 38 positions in

Human Resources will go. Many of those people will have sufficient

seniority, I assume, to be offered alternatives somewhere else in

government. They will then be bumping people in other ministries.

I want to ask a specific question of that minister. How many times

has the bumping been used in the government service since the

introduction of his restraint program? In other words, of the layoffs

that have occurred, how many laid off on the basis of the lowest

seniority to the highest seniority have taken advantage of bumping

provisions in the agreement? Is that clear to the minister?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. HANSON: Okay.

As I pointed out, we're looking at 1,100 more jobs gone in two weeks

time. There are going to be an awful lot of very unhappy people. There

are going to be an awful lot of people without any money to spend,

which is going to hurt government revenues. There are going to be a lot

of people who are denied important services that the government

provides. We have not had a proper debate on the impact that that has

had on our economy. We have not been provided with detailed information

in this House on this subject.

I'd like to move on, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk a little bit about

the people in managerial jobs in the government — in other words, those

who are not within the public service bargaining unit, whether nurses,

professional or the public service unit. The government managers are

now working a 40-hour week, I believe. They have not had any increase

in their pay for three years. I would like to ask what the status is at

the moment with respect to the managers within the public service. I

don't expect the minister to provide confidential details about the

negotiations, but I would like to ask him about the lack of progress in

the negotiations with the professional employees. Where does it stand?

When is the resolution of it? When is the agreement going to be signed?

I understand that the Treasury Board has had their brief for some time.

Can you give the House some indication of where that is?

I don't know if the minister is aware, but I've had government

employees in Victoria phone me, or just in conversation say: "You know,

I had a job with the government. I had 7, 12 or 18 years of service."

In some instances they're women. I've had instances where people who

were terminated have indicated to me that they could not bring

themselves to burnp because they felt — even though they're fully

entitled to do that under the collective agreement — that they had

adequate resources and they certainly would not take the risk of

knocking off a single parent. That's a very tough moral dilemma to put

employees in: that they have to sacrifice their whole career. A person

is married and the spouse is employed and perhaps in a very insecure

position, perhaps subject to a layoff or termination for economic

reasons further down the line. In other words, the spouse is not

guaranteed employment; there is no guarantee. You know of other

individuals, as I'm sure everyone does: people who were in the

educational system, on the career stream, who all of sudden lose their

position. I'm pointing out to the minister the kind of position it puts

people in when they have to bump someone. People anguish over that.

It's not something that people are happy about. It's a grievous

situation. I would like to know how many times the bumping has been

done and how much has been done by auxiliaries.

[3:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would like to know more specifically when the publication of

lottery grants issued is to be tabled in this House. It is overdue. The

last report filed concerning the allocation of provincial lottery

grants was for the first six months of the fiscal year 1982-83,

covering the period from March to September 1982. Apparently another

report has been prepared and will be printed whenever the minister

decides to approve it. What period will this cover, and when will it be

made available to this House?

If I can recount a few specific questions, I want to know....

[ Page 4012 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: You don't have to.

MR. HANSON: You've got them?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've got them.

MR. HANSON: All right. I've got two or three minutes so I'll ask a couple more questions.

As I pointed out, when that minister prioritizes the spending in his

budget, a lot of it is for advertising. Let's just take a look at the

February B.C. Government News

issue on the budget: Restraint Pledge, volume 29, no. 1, of which more

than a million were issued. The printing costs alone — not staff time

or anything else — were $63,500. The February 1984 issue was mailed to

every person in British Columbia, job or no job. They would rather have

had the money. It was all propaganda. The mailing cost alone was

$80,500 to tell British Columbians what a good job they were doing

laying people off. The total cost was $144,000; in a time of restraint,

where did the government get $144,000 to print and mail propaganda? At

the same time, they took $50 a month off the disabled.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to respond to

the questions that have been put to me by the first member for

Victoria. The first question that he asked was the matter of the

protocol vote and the funds allocated there — I had it tabbed here

until such time as he started asking me about the government

information services. The member said that a quarter of a million

dollars more was allocated, and he is absolutely correct in that

respect. There has been $100,000 allocated for the papal visit to

British Columbia this coming September, and $143,000 is essentially

because of the disbandment....

I don't know if the member wants my answers or not.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think those answers were very comprehensive; in fact they were totally inadequate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What did I say?

MR. HANSON: Very little. What about melding GERB and the Public Service Commission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I took my seat because the

member was busy in a conversation. I'm wondering if he's asking

questions because he wants information or just to make cheap political

statements.

On his question about protocol, the member said there was an

additional $250,000 allocated to that budget this year. There is

$243,047 in additional funds allocated there, of which $100,000 is for

the papal visit to British Columbia in September; $143,047 is because

of the disbandment of the ministry's information services, the melding

of it with the government information services and the transfer to this

particular vote of the three permanent and six summer tour guides for

the Parliament Buildings. That makes up the additional allocation for

protocol.

On the question of melding the Public Service Commission and the

Government Employees' Relations Bureau, it's a situation which

essentially takes place in the private sector, as most employers have

their personnel and labour or industrial relations as one unit in their

organization. That is essentially what we are going to be doing. This

kind of approach is one which will guarantee the merit principle being

retained. I think it will be advantageous for the government's cost

efficiencies, and it will be a better unit for bargaining by the

government. I don't really want to discuss that too lengthily today,

because I propose to bring forward legislation dealing with the

amalgamation of these two government services, at which time we will

have ample opportunity to fully discuss the wisdom or lack of wisdom,

as some people might consider it, of this amalgamation.

Yes, GERB is in virtually constant negotiation with the B.C.

Government Employees' Union on a variety of issues, addressing some of

the contracting out that is being proposed by various ministries of

government. Whether GERB has been negotiating with the BCGEU regarding

the various services that members brought to the floor, such as the

contracting out of the sheriff services, is one issue I am unable to

address at this time.

The question of safety in the prisons. That is an issue that will be

addressed by each and every ministry that is involved in the question

of any contracting out that might take place. That's an issue that will

be raised with the ministry under the provisions of the collective

agreement. There's no suggestion that there'll be any less safety

through the contracting-out process.

On the question of numbers of employees, I mentioned a little

earlier on a point of order that the establishment size is determined

by Treasury Board. The numbers are allocated to each and every ministry

of government. The ministry is involved in assuring that the standards,

the collective agreement. We ensure that there is fair and equitable

treatment of the public servants of British Columbia.

On the question of bumping, you might also take into consideration

that the BCGEU was very supportive; in fact, it proposed that a bumping

provision be put in place. They advocated very strongly that seniority

rights and bumping privileges go along with seniority rights. So that's

one of the issues that was resolved, and on which the government

bargaining arm, GERB, really went along with the union. There was a

strong feeling by the BCGEU that bumping should only take place among

the auxiliary employees of government with less than three years'

service.

There is a complicated, convoluted mechanism in place addressing the

issue of bumping, one with which I am sure the officers of the BCGEU

are very familiar. I have been so close to it that I understand the

system fairly well, but a layman who is not involved in these kinds of

contractual arrangements might find it complicated. It's one which

works fairly effectively. You say there is distress on the part of some

people regarding the question of bumping. Sometimes bumping is a matter

of survival. I know that as a young man, when I worked on the railroad,

unless I did a little bit of bumping from time to time, I had to go to

the United States and work on American railroads, The only employment

provision on a temporary basis that I ever had when I worked on the

railroad in those days was that I could work for six months when they

were moving the wheat for Europe through to Halifax instead of through

the Great Lakes. The rest of the year I had to use the bumping

privileges that were there through the collective agreement, or go to

the United States of America and work on American railroads, which I

did on numerous occasions.

We sent a note out to the chairman of the Public Service Commission to give us the information you are seeking on

[ Page 4013 ]

the number of bumps that have taken place. We don't

have the precise number. We know that in some instances a fair number

of auxiliaries do leave the service. We don't know what the time-frame

is, but 328 auxiliaries have left the government service. No, I'd

better not give you any figures now. Figures will be flowing in. If my

estimates are not through, I make a commitment to you that I will give

you those precise figures. If my estimates are through before the

information flows to me, I want to tell you this: you can put the

question on the order paper, and I promise to answer it within 48 hours.

MR. HANSON: Or will you resign your seat?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, you see, I can't make that commitment

to you because I might not check the order paper, and the question

might sit there for 48 hours, and I'd have to resign my seat if I

didn't reach down and look at the order paper. But I'll resign my seat

from the time I see it on the order paper until such time as I deliver

an answer, yes.

The next question, on the subject of government managers. I don't

think this is the appropriate place to be doing the bargaining as far

as the government managers are concerned. They're in the process of

negotiating with GERB at this time, so I'll leave it at that. There is

a termination of an agreement and negotiations are taking place —

probably not in a speedy fashion, but they're still negotiating.

On the question of the lottery report, I would have to check just

what the status of that report is. The last time I talked to the

director of the lotteries — but not on that occasion — he indicated to

me that he is in the process of putting together a report. I want to

assure you that I'm anxious to show the people of British Columbia

where their betting dollars have been placed to the benefit of all

British Columbians.

[4:00]

MR. KEMPF: I'm sure happy to hear those last remarks of the

minister, because I've been after that report for a number of weeks, if

not months, and the minister, to say the least, has been very elusive.

It's very good to hear today that that report will soon be forthcoming.

I want to talk about two particular aspects of the minister's

administrative duties this afternoon, both of which have a very real

effect on the northern communities I serve, their projects, and the

services they get.

The first subject is the allocation of lottery funds. As I said

before, I have attempted for some time now to obtain some response to

my question as to where lottery funds are being allocated, how much

money is in the fund, how much money was in the fund as of January 31,

1984, how much money went into that fund during the 1983-84 fiscal

year, and exactly why it is that all of the applications for lottery

funds — I shouldn't say "all"; I should say "most of " — from my

constituency don't seem to meet the guidelines. If those guidelines are

such as to not accept applications from small rural communities of this

province, why aren't they being changed? Time after time I am told by

the Ministry of Provincial Secretary that applications from clubs and

groups in the area which I have the responsibility for in this chamber

cannot, for one reason or another, be accepted because of the

guidelines. There have been requests for $18,000, $10,000, $3,000,

$3,300, $17,000 — request after request, with a number of reasons for

turndown: because it's an RFAP project; because in this case an

application for a wilderness camp is turned down because there are too

many camps of that sort in British Columbia; because the camp is

profit-oriented and poorly attended; or because the fund doesn't give

operational funding in this case to a figure skating club.

Mr. Chairman, during the hours and days ahead I intend to go into

each of these applications individually so this House has no doubt in

their mind as to why the applications were made, how much they were for

and what their purpose was. Application after application was turned

down because they did not meet the guidelines of the Lottery Fund,

which is receiving, as I understand it, more and more dollars monthly

from those willing to gamble and buy tickets out there. I have some

very serious concerns about that. I have some very serious concerns as

to the numbers of dollars going from this fund to southern projects,

once again leaving the northern rural areas of this province holding

the bag.

There was a time when these kinds of small applications were

accepted by the Lottery Fund. Granted, many of them fell into the

category of the recreational facilities assistance program. Granted,

that program was done away with. But at the same time as that program

was done away with, which incidentally got its money from the Lottery

Fund, additional moneys to the tune of millions and millions of dollars

were allocated from that same fund to fund huge projects in southern

British Columbia. Don't get me wrong and don't get my constituents

wrong: certainly we support projects such as B.C. Place, because we are

also proud British Columbians. When time after time after time very

worthwhile projects asking for a mere pittance from this Lottery Fund

are turned down in these small rural communities, then I must have some

suspicion as to the numbers of dollars going into these large projects

in the urban areas of this province. Granted, the objects of some of

the applications made under the Lottery Fund by groups and

organizations in my community are a bit abnormal. Their needs are

different. Certainly the small rural communities have different needs

than do cities such as Vancouver or Victoria. Consequently, their

reasons for applying to the Lottery Fund are different — drastically

different in many cases. Nevertheless, there's a need.

In 1983-84 the recreational facilities assistance program was done

away with. In the last year of its operation, $10.5 million came from

the Lottery Fund for that program. That $10.5 million was disbursed

throughout this province, and it did a world of good funding projects

in the small communities such as the ones in my constituency. But since

the inauguration of Lotto 6-49 and the earmarking of that money for

Expo 86, the fund has virtually dried up as far as projects in my

constituency are concerned — and, I would suspect, as far as projects

are concerned in many other rural areas of this province. Large lump

sums of money have been earmarked from the Lottery Fund for these

southern projects, not just Expo 86 but others. I would like to know

what those projects are and how much money has been earmarked for them.

Without an accounting of the lottery fund program, which we have not

had for a number of months in this province, it's absolutely impossible

to find out how much that is. Mr. Chairman, I don't accept the

responses which I've received to my questions. They are very simple

questions: the number of dollars received by the fund; a list of where

this money is being spent; and dollars remaining in the fund. I get

responses such as this. I'll read a part of this letter.

[ Page 4014 ]

"While you do not define what you mean by 'rural

communities' in your most recent series of memoranda, earlier

communications between yourself and previous Provincial Secretaries

have talked of the disparity in grants between communities to the north

and south of a line drawn through Cache Creek. Assuming this is still

your dividing line, a generous compilation of population figures gives

374,382 or 13.6 percent of the provincial population to the 'rural'

areas from Cache Creek north and 86.4 percent or 2,370,085 people south

of that line. Investigating applications received from the start of

this fiscal year to January 24, 1984, we find that of the 324

applications so far dealt with, 65 came from your rural areas.

Twenty-three or 35.3 percent were approved, and 42 or 64.7 percent were

rejected. The total dollars approved amounts to 28 percent of the total

committed during the period, remembering that the population is 13.6

percent of the provincial total."

Mr. Chairman, to suggest that lottery funds should be allocated on

the basis of a per capita figure is absolutely ridiculous. If we are to

follow that to the furthest, I would suggest that the minister go one

step further to find out where the majority of the money comes from for

the sale of these tickets in British Columbia. If we're going to do it

on a per capita basis, let's do it properly. I think you would find

out, because of the fact that the people living in the rural area of

this province are naturally greater gamblers, that a lion's share of

those tickets are sold in those areas. To base lottery fund grants on a

per capita basis is preposterous. If that's what you are going to do,

let's base everything else on a return to the area where the money for

the provincial coffers of this province came from. I think you would

find the rural areas of this province going begging for funds if you

did that, because the lion's share of the revenues that flow into

provincial coffers in this province come from that line north of Cache

Creek and not the urban areas of this province.

[4:15]

As I said, I intend to go a lot deeper into this question of lottery

funds: how much money is coming in, where it is being spent and how

much is left in the fund each month. We in the rural areas of this

province are going short when it comes to lottery fund money, and I

want some answers so that I can properly report to whose whom I

represent why their applications are turned down. If the minister is

going to get up and tell me once again, as he has many times in the

past, that my applications are turned down because they don't meet the

guidelines, my next question is going to be: when are those guidelines

going to be changed so they are not prejudicial to the people living in

the small communities of this province who produce the revenue that

keeps this province going?

I want to speak about this and another subject relating to this

minister's responsibilities, that of the British Columbia Buildings

Corporation. But for the moment I would like some answers to my

questions relating to the Lottery Fund.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's always nice to respond to the

management of the lottery grants. I don't want to start out and list

all the various projects or recreational facilities and the allocation

of funds at this time, because it would take too long. At no time have

I ever suggested, for instance, that the allocation of these funds

should be on a per capita basis. At no time have I ever suggested that

there should be the allocation of these funds from the areas that

produce the wealth in British Columbia as well. I think we have a

responsibility, in the administration of these funds, to ensure that

they're widely disbursed to various regions of the province on the

basis of needs and on the basis of applications as well. If you don't

get an application in from a particular constituency, it cannot be

addressed. So there are some certain constituencies that don't send the

same number of applications that are generated from other

constituencies, and that in many instances determines the allocation of

these funds.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, the NDP. Well, we never at any time....

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) suggests that if he were

government there would be cheap politics involved in the allocation of

these funds on the basis of representation in this House. That has

never happened, Mr. Member, as long as I've had the administrative

responsibility of allocating these funds, based on the guidelines in

place at this time.

Needless to say, we have to have guidelines, whether the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) accepts it or not. If someone has a profit-oriented

enterprise and made an application for a lottery grant, would the NDP

fund that project?

MR. ROSE: No.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The NDP have just responded that the answer

is no. There's a need for some guidelines, and any endeavour, whether

it's very profitable or a money-losing proposition, if it's not a

non-profit society, shouldn't be funded by lotteries. We have

established guidelines, and that's the thing the member for Omineca is

unwilling to accept. There are only one or maybe two of his

applications that have been turned down in recent years, because these

have been other than non-profit societies. For the other applications

that have been turned down, I'm very sympathetic and would like to

help, but at this time there is a moratorium on the recreational

facilities assistance program, and with a moratorium in place, needless

to say we aren't able to allocate any funds for projects that do

qualify under the guidelines. I want to say that the majority of the

applications that have come from Omineca are projects that essentially

do qualify, but don't qualify because of the moratorium. That's

something that has to be recognized. That's where his major problem

lies: the moratorium. Unless he's got a friend up in the bush who wants

to have a wilderness camp to try to make a buck with lottery funds that

I think should go to other projects, I don't know what the argument is.

I think I've pretty well answered most of the questions that have

been put by the member. The funds are allocated on the basis of

application, and the funds are widely disbursed for provincially

important projects that are put forward by non-profit societies,

municipalities and such organizations.

MR. KEMPF: It's very interesting to hear the minister say

that he's never suggested that Lottery Fund grants should be allocated

on a per capita basis. Mr. Chairman, I guess I was reluctant to say

that the figures I gave and the memorandum I was quoting from just a

few minutes ago was dated February 29. It's signed by James R. Chabot,

minister. If you want me to read it into the record again, it makes it

very clear

[ Page 4015 ]

that the minister suggests that Lottery Fund grant

applications be allocated on a per capita basis — on a line drawn

through Cache Creek.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you're saying I said that, read it into the record.

MR. KEMPF: I read it into the record already, Mr. Minister.

We talk about applications being turned down because they aren't

non-profit. This application is from Mr. Allan Bush of the Tezzeron

Wilderness Camp. Certainly Mr. Bush is no friend of mine; I had never

heard of the gentleman before receiving a letter from him asking that I

support his application.

Prior to receiving a printout showing how many applications were

actually turned down in Omineca.... It is not, as the minister says, a

very few. I can read that list into the record as well, if we wish.

For this moment, I'd just like to zero in on the application by

Tezzeron Wilderness Camp. I was given a reason for the turndown in a

letter from the minister dated August 11, 1983. In the printout I

received just recently in answer to my February 2 letter, I found out

that it was turned down because it wasn't a non-profit organization.

The reason I was given back in August 1983 was: "It appears from all

that we have been able to discover that Tezzeron Wilderness Camp is run

by an individual. It therefore does not qualify for assistance from the

start." You bet it was run by an individual. I have the total

application right here. I want to read into the record of this House

what the application represented and what it was for.

First, I'd like to read into the record that the application was for

a mere $5,000 for a total cost project of $10,000 — 50 percent of the

total project. Sure, it was for items that probably seem oddball to

bureaucrats sitting in Victoria, but there are very real needs to these

people on Stuart Lake in Fort St. James in my constituency. The

application and moneys were to go towards the purchase of six canoes,

five dozen paddles, five dozen life-jackets, one aluminium boat and

five nylon tents. It's a terrible application! These items were to be

used for a summer camp for young children. It may be an oddball

application as far as Victoria is concerned, but it certainly isn't an

oddball application as far as I'm concerned on behalf of those whom I

represent and this gentleman whom I'd never heard of before. It's not

an oddball application at all — $5,000 from a multimillion-dollar fund,

from which multimillions of dollars are being poured into urban

Vancouver.

Again I say that I'm a proud British Columbian. I support those

kinds of projects, but I want our fair share of the pie, however small

or large that pie may be. By God, we're taking the short end of the

stick in the north. I've got a pile here, Mr. Chairman, that are going

to last me three or four days. If these kinds of projects are turned

down — an application for $5,000 for paddles, life-jackets and tents

for a summer camp for kids — I've really got to ask about the

guidelines under which these lottery funds are allocated. Application

after application: assistance for a public library; assistance for a

skating club — that application was for $3,000, and I'll read that into

the record in due course as well.

I'd like the minister to reconsider the answers that he gave to my

questions in relation to the facts, and I'll give him just a little

time to respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll recognize the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I thought the member for Omineca had concluded his remarks.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, no, never.

MR. HOWARD: I realize never, but I thought he had temporarily concluded, Mr. Chairman.

It looks like the minister is going to have ample time to get the

answers to the questions that were posed to him earlier. By the sound

of things he won't have to look forward to reading the order paper to

find they've been written for him.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose the appropriate name for this ministry could

be the Ministry of Grease, because this is the ministry that assists....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The mellifluous ministry. How's that?

This is the ministry that has within it something called government

information services. That's the official title on the book before us.

That's the $20 million, in rough figures.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pretty rough. That's $1.1 million out.

[4:30]

MR. HOWARD: Let's take the amount out of the estimates book — and we see that it is $18,915,859 to March 31, 1985. Add to that....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order. I want to give the member for Omineca his answer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will be ample opportunity, Mr. Minister, when the member for Skeena has finished.

MR. HOWARD: Add to that some salaries which are not included

in this vote, and some subject matters of financing that are in the

Premier's office, and we find a total of $20,495,750 — not under this

vote, but available for advertising and public relations spending.

That's why I took the rough figure of $20 million.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

To be conservative about it — and just so that I don't entice the

minister to get into a discussion of figures and fine details, rather

than a discussion of principle and function — we'll deal with the

figure that's in the estimates book: $18,915,859 available for

propaganda. Also, given the fact that that $18,915,859 is an increase

over what the estimate was for last year, it is a plus. The amount of

money has been added to. They said that all other ministries, except

Health, declined in allocation of funds. Not so with this thing called

government information services. Who does the minister think he is?

Bill Ritchie? We went through that the other day, and it ended up that

the amount of money allocated was up. The amount of money in the

estimates for the coming fiscal year, ending March 31, 1985 is an

increase over the amount of money in the estimates for 1983-84, The

minister keeps

[ Page 4016 ]

shaking his head, saying no. But I'm only taking

the figures out of the book. I'm not adjusting any figures at all. I'm

just simply reading from the estimates of 1983-84, which this

Legislature passed.

For government information services last year the amount in the

estimates was $17,861 018. This year the estimate is $18,915,859. A

very rough calculation of that shows it to be an increase of more than

a million dollars for propaganda. So while there are curtailments and

cutbacks and the poor member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) can't get an

approval for $5,000 out of the lottery fund for kids at Fort St. James,

which I understood him to say was the proposal for six canoes and 60

paddles, or whatever it was that he wanted.... While he can't get

$5,000 approved for that, the ministry has gone ahead and socked in an

additional $1,100,000 into the estimates for the government information

services. I'd suggest to the member for Omineca that maybe he should

become friends with Doug Heal. You might be able to employ an

advertising agency to tell people how good things are.

It is incongruous that while money is not available for worthwhile

ventures such as those advanced by the member for Omineca, they're

available for propaganda. They're available for slick television

advertising. They're available for this government to propagandize, to

advertise itself and, before May of last year, to advertise Social

Credit in an inferential way. They reached into the taxpayers' pockets

for a large amount of money — around a million dollars — to engage in a

television advertising program to advance the interests of Social

Credit. The taxpayers paid for that. That's why I identified that

perhaps the ministry is misnamed as Provincial Secretary. It's involved

in politics up to its ears, and the government information services is

in the forefront or the spearhead of that activity. Ever since Doug

Heal came on the scene he's been involved in politics. The first thing

the government did was hire his firm to make a recommendation as to who

should be hired for government information officer. Lo and behold, his

firm recommended that he be hired. That's the essence of what happened.

And the government hired him. No sooner did he get on the payroll than

he ended up at Harrison Lake at a Social Credit conference. We tried

our best to find out from this current minister what that was all about

— was that politics? They just hid from that question.

It's not that gentleman, Mr. Heal himself — it's this government

that's really involved. He's just the tool carrying out the wishes of

the Premier and this government about propagandizing. He's just the

agency. He may be a willing agency or an unwilling one; it's

immaterial. He's just the technician, doing what he's told, which is

basically to propagandize to the tune of $18.9 million, an increase

over last year's estimates of about $1.1 million.

Attempts have been made to find out information about that. I know

the minister is very open and forthright in his declarations that he

just loves to answer questions. I listen attentively for those answers

sometimes, Mr. Chairman, and I don't hear the answers. But I know the

minister's declaration is that he loves to answer questions. A number

of questions about expenditures were put to him during the last

session. Written questions — not ones asked orally in the House — were

put on the order paper and were allowed to die there. The minister

refused to even bother providing any kind of answer to those questions.

He couldn't bestir himself to provide the general public with

information as to what's happening within the ministry of propaganda.

There were questions that just said: "What was the total cost of

production of the B.C. lotteries' ALRT series of television advertising

in 1982 and 1983?" The question was ignored. "What is the cost of

production of" — the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) would be interested

in this — "the B.C. lotteries' Expo 86 series of television

advertisements aired during 1982-83?" That question rested, languished

and died on the order paper, killed by the minister. He refused to

answer, refused to tell the general public about those types of costs.

At least to the member for Omineca the minister writes letters and

tells him why he can't get any money out of the lottery side of things.

But here, when we're talking in terms of millions of dollars of

propaganda money on television, there's not a whisper from the minister

about that information.

"What was the cost of production of the B.C. lotteries' health care

series of television advertisements aired during 1982 and 1983?" That's

another legitimate question that the people of the province should have the

answer to — ignored. "What was the cost of production of the 'B.C. Reports'

series of television advertisements aired during 1982-83?" Another question

was allowed to die. "What was the cost of the production of the TRAC series

of television advertisements aired during 1982 and 1983?" That question

was ignored.

They were questions seeking to find from the minister what his

propaganda agency did with the taxpayers' money. How much did it spend

on these things? That's all they were seeking — accountability,

openness. Declarations — oh, he's waving some book in his hands there —

of the minister saying he just loves to answer questions ring pretty

hollow in the face of the facts, when it comes to questions about what

his propaganda agency, otherwise known as government information

services, did with something in the neighbourhood of $30 million

roughly over the two-year period we're talking about. What does it

contemplate doing with $18.9 million in this coming fiscal year? I

think, seriously, that when we get to that particular vote there would

appear to be no alternative but for us to object to the estimate and

cast our vote against it, partly because the proof exists that it has

been used for propaganda purposes seeking to advance the interests of a

particular political party but paid for by the general public. Many

words come to mind that I'm sure would be unparliamentary, no matter

how judiciously or delicately phrased, identifying what this sort of

chicanery is all about.

I hope that will at least afford the minister some opportunity to

answer now those questions that he ignored and refused to answer before.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I don't happen to have the answers in

my back pocket, but the member makes a very good point. I guess with my

preoccupation with other matters more pressing in the last parliament I

didn't have a chance to address those issues on the order paper. But I

make it my business to attempt to answer questions, and all I can say

to the member is that if he really wants the answer — unless he only

wants to attempt to embarrass the government by suggestions and

innuendos.... If that's the case, maybe he'd better not put the

questions on the order paper again. The questions, as the member has

suggested, have essentially died because of the lack of answering. I

suggest to the member that he resurrect them and put them on the order

paper again, and we'll see whether we can get that information for you.

We'll do our best.

[ Page 4017 ]

[4:45]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, it's an agreeable course of action,

and I'm not objecting to it. But if I were to do that I would be

costing the taxpayer more money because of the paper involved and the

printers who have to be paid to print them up so that they appear on

the order paper. I would suggest to the minister that I have just read

those questions word for word as they were in the written form during

the last session. They're in Hansard . All you have to do, Mr. Minister, is read Hansard ,

or get somebody to read it for you — whatever you like. On the basis of

that you can provide the answers, and then we don't have to waste any

more taxpayers' money by putting questions on the order paper. They're

there in Hansard , and I have great confidence that the reporting staff and the editors at Hansard

will have them down precisely word for word as they were in their

written form. I have no doubt that the minister.... He's not now

preoccupied with those things that he said he was preoccupied with

before. If the minister will just pick up Hansard ....

In fact, he could have somebody in his ministry put a mark alongside

the questions for him and say, "Mr. Minister, this is the question that

was posed." He would be able to see the question in written form and

provide the answer, and it won't cost the taxpayers any more money.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it's the first reasonable

suggestion I've had from the member. He's concerned about the

taxpayers' money, and I would like to give him one other suggestion as

well. The member for Skeena has a tendency to be long-winded and use

ten words when one will do. The only thing I can say is: attempt to

reform, change your ways, and then it won't be necessary for people to

burn the midnight oil, burn the lights, do the typing and burn up the

paper as well for all the extra words that you use. We'll save more

taxpayers' money that way. It's just a little recommendation that I'm

making to the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: The minister is very perceptive, and he puts

forward an argument which would appear to have some sense to it on the

surface. But he should appreciate that the reason I use ten words

instead of one for this particular minister is that you have to repeat

things for him so many, many times for him to grasp the significance.

One word wouldn't do with him. Repetition is necessary to take account

of the level of appreciation that the minister has of complex points

such as: when are you going to answer those questions?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I too want to get back to questions

and answers. I really do hope that the minister doesn't think that I am

trying to embarrass anybody — the government, the minister or anyone

else. I just want to know, and I'm going to stay here as long as it

takes to find out, why northerners are getting short-changed in

relation to the lottery fund. I haven't heard answers to my questions,

Mr. Chairman, and they're very simple. How many dollars were received

in the fund in the last 12 months? Where is the list of the money that

has been spent out of the fund in the last 12 months? Earlier the

minister said that we were going to get that list. Then I guess the

next question is: when are we going to get that list? The third

question: how many dollars were there remaining in the fund as of

December 31, 1983? They're very simple questions.

I would also like to know how much money is being spent from the

fund each month on large urban projects in the lower mainland of this

province. I want to know why there continues to be a moratorium on the

recreation facilities assistance program. Funds for that program — when

it was funded — came out of lottery fund moneys. Why is there still a

moratorium when the total sales of lottery tickets are up? I have here

a rundown on sales of Lotto 6-49 tickets between June 1982 and February

1984. Lotto 6-49 sales have been very brisk, which leads me to believe

that there are even more dollars going into the fund now than there

were 12 months ago. So the question is: when I'm given the excuse time

after time that an application can't be considered because it doesn't

meet the guidelines, and as it is in fact an REAP application, why is

there still a moratorium on the recreation facilities assistance

program?

Mr. Chairman, I intend to stay here as long as it takes to get the

answers to those questions, because I want to say before everyone in

this chamber that I have tried desperately in the last five months, on

behalf of those whom I represent, to get those answers, and I have not

been able to do so. It's my responsibility to do that.

The minister talked about the reasons for turning down applications.

I would like to read into the record another application made by a

group called the New Caledonia Dancers in a little community called

Fort St. James in my constituency. I'd like to read you the reasons for

them wanting the grant. I have in my hand a copy of the actual

application. They write this under the heading "What is the Purpose for

this Grant?" I quote: "The New Caledonia Dancers is a very young club

in Fort St. James. Our goal is to give the children of our community

the opportunity to learn tap, ballet and jazz dancing. We feel we will

benefit approximately 80 children. We are applying for a grant through

the Lottery Fund in order to purchase mirrors, ballet bars and mats."

The application was for $3,000. Three thousand dollars to benefit 80

young people in the community of Fort St. James out of a multimillion

dollar fund, out of which is coming $20 million a year for the next

five years for Expo 86. You screw up your face, Mr. Minister, for us,

but this is true. This is absolutely true!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're not a competent MLA.

MR. KEMPF: You're saying I'm not a competent MLA. Can I read

that into the record, Mr. Minister of Forests? I'd be happy to, on

behalf of the some 14,000 people that I represent in this chamber. I'd

be proud to read that into the record.

MR. BLENCOE: Cross the floor.

MR. KEMPF: I'd cross the floor, but there's no place to go, Mr. Member for Victoria.

I'll tell you something. Out of this fund that's collecting.... I

don't know how much it's collecting. I can't get the answers to my

questions. But I would suggest it's in excess of $60 million a year.

Out of this fund we can't get $3,000 to benefit 80 children in one of

my small communities. You say the north isn't taking the short end of

the stick. Mr. Chairman, I rest my case. I've got lots more to say, but

let's give somebody else a chance.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member was asking just what kind of estimated revenue there is from the Lottery Fund. I

[ Page 4018 ]

think if you look at the estimate book on page 231 you'd find the answer. It's a matter of public record.

The member seems to hold some bias against the expenditure of

lottery funds in the lower mainland. I'm a rural member as well, and I

don't hold that particular bias. Applications are approved on the basis

of meeting the guidelines and on the basis of applications flowing. The

member never really did tell us whether there's going to be a fee for

the people going to the ballet dancing studio that is going to be

established in Fort St. James with mirrors and ballet bars they want to

buy. Is he asking for an operating grant, or is this capital? It is my

belief that it's capital and that there will be a charge for those

people participating in that particular endeavour. I want to say that

we do not allocate lottery grants for profit-oriented enterprises. That

is essentially what this is, and those canoes with ten paddles per

canoe are the same thing as well. If he will tell me that the applicant

never identified his intention of charging those young people going

into the summer camp on Stuart Lake, then he has a different

application. But it's my understanding that the application for this

capital expenditure involves an application from an individual who

wants to charge those youngsters, so it's profit-oriented. Whether or

not it will be profitable is another issue. But the information we have

at the moment and the reason it was turned down is that it is

profit-oriented.

I guess I rest my case too.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, that really is interesting. We've

now thrown a new curve into the applications for Lottery Fund projects

in this province. I can remember funds being allocated to a number of

projects in this province. There were a couple in my own constituency

in years gone by. One was to pave a skating rink where, when flooded,

fees were charged to skate; one was to build a community hall where

fees were charged for certain do's carried on in that hall. It was made

quite clear — I'll read again from the application — that the moneys

asked for from the Lottery Fund were to buy equipment. It had nothing

to do with fees. Certainly fees are charged those young children, and

for good reason. I read from the application: "Once we have purchased

mats, ballet bars and mirrors, the children's season's fees will pay

for the teacher. I can't see us having any other major expense." All

that the $3,000 was to do was to get this club on the map; to give them

the opportunity to provide that kind of culture, which we don't have

much of in the northern part of this province, and to allow 80 children

to partake of those kinds of lessons. If that's a money-making scheme,

I've really got to ask some more serious questions.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'll get away for a moment from particular applications. I have

another pet peeve as far as the provincial Lottery Fund is concerned,

and that is the situation where recently we as government removed the

possibility of distribution of tickets by charitable groups and

organizations — groups that used the money from selling lottery tickets

to do many more good things in the small communities of this province.

I want to read into the record what the policy of cutting out that

distribution has done to just one individual in this province. A letter

I received very recently from Port Edward says: "In the case of the

Port Edward Lions Club, this government control made our agent, who

suffers from multiple sclerosis, an unemployable social assistance

recipient." The sale of those tickets by that Lions Club provided this

fellow with employment, as well as providing that club with a means by

which to raise money that they could plough back into the community.

That money now goes to the Western Canada Lotteries Foundation in

Winnipeg, not to groups and individuals in our own province. It was

perceived that these agents were incompetent.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: For what other reason then, Mr. Minister, did we

make that change? Did we acquiesce to the wishes of the east? It

certainly hasn't helped British Columbians. It certainly hasn't helped

clubs such as the Lions Club in Port Edward in British Columbia. It has

taken away their means to raise money for their community. Not only

that; I would suggest that in many areas it has cut down on the sale of

lottery tickets in small communities. These people really went out and

did a job of it. They were really interested in what they were doing.

They were interested in doing good things in their community. The more

tickets they sold, the more they could do. I think it was a catastrophe

to take that ability to earn money for their communities away from

them. I'd like to hear the minister's reasoning for having done that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the mechanism of lottery

ticket distribution was put in place some considerable time before I

became the minister in charge of the lotteries. First of all, I guess

what caused the change in the distribution was the fact that the banks

decided to stop distribution of lottery tickets. That imposed a

tremendous burden on the lottery program and its ability to distribute

tickets. Without the banks in place as a central distributor, we had a

serious problem. I guess that's what predicated my predecessor to

attempt to put in a different distribution system.

I might say that there has been a tremendous growth in the lottery

business as well. Online machines have been put in place, which is now

a separate and distinct thing handled by the Western Canada Lottery

Foundation. The distribution centre operates out of Richmond. The

lotteries really are not the same kind of business they were some

considerable years ago. You're talking about a lottery business now

where you're dealing with gross revenues of about $125 million a year.

You're dealing with big business now.

I sympathize with the service clubs and the revenue that it did

generate. There are many instances when services clubs couldn't

possibly handle the kind of growth in business that has taken place in

recent years. For a considerable time we have as a government continued

to pay these lottery distributors — these service clubs throughout

British Columbia — their percentage, even though they were not actively

involved in the distribution of lottery tickets. Even though the

distribution of lottery tickets was a diminishing responsibility for

them, we've continued to pay them their 6 percent. For instance, the

Lions Club of Port Edwards last year, under the guaranteed.... I don't

know what their activity was as far as distribution is concerned; maybe

they're completely out of the distribution business. That's quite

conceivable. We paid that Lions Club $20,763 under the 6 percent

guarantee that we've honoured — and extended for some considerable