[ Page 983 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading 98-

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates.

On vote 169.

Mr. Barrett –– 983

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 983

On vote 176.

Mr. Barber –– 984

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 984

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates.

On vote 177.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 984

Mrs. Dailly –– 985

Mr. Passarell –– 987

Mr. Smith –– 987

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 987

Mr. Barnes –– 988

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 991

Mr. Hanson –– 992

Mr. Hall –– 993

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 994

Mr. Cocke –– 995

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 996

Ms. Sanford –– 997

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 997

Mr. King –– 997

Appendix –– 998

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT OF SUNSHINE

On a motion by Mrs. Jordan, Bill M 210, An Act of Sunshine, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry I didn't have the opportunity to ask the minister. I read in the paper that the minister made statements about ICBC. I would appreciate it if you, as a cabinet minister, would clarify those statements. Were you in on the decisions that led to your statement, or did you just make up the statement? I'd like to know whether or not it was a cabinet decision, or was it just yours out of the weekend hat?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Estimates do not afford the opportunity to discuss the responsibilities of other ministries — only those ministries under which the minister in question is responsible through his administrative responsibility.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, did the minister make the statement that's attributed to him in the press? It's his estimates. First of all, I want to know if you made that statement, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he didn't answer in question period. I checked the Hansard Blues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have the sixteenth and the eighteenth; a ruling from either would be most appropriate. The administrative action of the department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. Nor can be the actions of those high in public servants whose conduct can be criticized only on a substantive motion. We are discussing the administrative action of the department, which is open to debate.

MR. BARRETT: I've had some inquiries from municipalities that own automobiles as to the auto vehicle insurance rates next year related to the minister's statements. Could the minister clarify for me whether or not, with the new ICBC rates, they can keep within the 5 percent budgetary restriction that you've brought in on the municipalities? Now that's a very important question related to municipal budgets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It may be very important, hon. member, but the Chair cannot allow that type of argument. The debate on ICBC was covered under the Minister of Human Resources.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Who was the minister responsible? If you would care to couch your questions in a manner that would affect the....

MR. BARRETT: Yes. I'I put them on the couch. Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister how the impact of the 5 percent ceiling on municipal budgets, recommended by his ministry, would affect the municipalities relative to the changes of automobile insurance within the framework of their budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as I outlined earlier, part of the duties of our ministry is to provide guidance and information to the various municipalities throughout the province. Certainly over the last three years we've developed a very excellent record in that regard. From this we have seen, as I mentioned earlier — in fact an unprecedented move — where 74 out of 140 municipalities have been able to bring about a tax reduction. I'm certain it is an example for the whole of Canada. I'm sure that we will find that the municipalities will also benefit from the tremendous moves that are being made throughout agencies of government, and in ICBC as well. As efficiencies are being brought into that particular system of insurance — and as we've seen them over the last several years — the benefits will accrue to all of the citizens of British Columbia, including the municipalities. I'm certain they'll have no difficulty maintaining themselves within a 5 percent limit, although I'm not sure such a requirement will be asked of them. But I'm sure that if they try they can do it.

MR. BARRETT: Just one last question, Mr. Minister. Will that policy include the loss of the safe-driver discount to the municipalities?

Interjection.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe that comes under the administrative responsibiJity of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer that. We've seen that if there are accidents, then they'll pay higher rates. But we've had a number of moves through this ministry, and through other ministries, to try and introduce safe driving within municipalities. And these are also showing considerable benefits, and the driving records of people in municipalities have improved considerably over the last number of years.

[ Page 984 ]

Vote 169 approved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. BARBER: Vote 176 applies to computer and consulting charges and allocates $28,500 for that service this year. Last year $136,000 was allocated for the same service. Judging by the enormous savings, I presume that the ministry has abandoned the B.C. Systems Corporation. If it hasn't, could the minister tell us how it is he has managed to reduce his budget by $109,000? It's quite extraordinary. If he's done that, perhaps it would be to some benefit to the other ministers, who have increased their budget this year for consulting services. In any case, it's a major cut. We wish the minister and the ministry well now that they've abandoned the Systems Corporation. I wonder if he might tell us which systems they're using now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Last year there was a considerable sum included for pulling together information and developing a system of keeping statistical information for municipalities. We've now gone to a Micom system to process this type of information — data and statistical information for municipalities. We certainly don't require that large a sum this year.

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

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

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

Vote 176 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I look forward to making a few observations at this point in the presentation of my estimates, and then I will hopefully be able to answer the questions which are posed by members.

As a direct result of this government's ongoing review of programs, the responsibility of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services was enlarged in early December of last year. In addition to the traditional services provided to government by this ministry, and they include a variety of things — management of the public service, printing, microfilming, postal services, support for this Legislature and executive council — we were assigned several directly related responsibilities in December, including the British Columbia Buildings Corporation and the Government Employee Relations Bureau.

We were also assigned several new programs to complement our public services which, for many years, have included the Provincial Museum, the archives, a number of other public facilities and the tour guides here in the legislative buildings. The new programs consist of responsibility for construction and maintenance in these buildings and of Government House, the cultural services program, Heritage, libraries and the recreation and fitness branch.

By way of introducing these estimates for the ministry, it should be observed that the Travel Industry portfolio was transferred out of the ministry at the same time that the new programs just outlined were transferred in. The overall effect on the ministry's budget is to raise it from $151.3 million in 1978-79 to $178.8 million in 1979-80. I would like to remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, that this increase results from receiving programs from the former Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, and from other ministries, rather than from any significant change in any one program.

Also, Mr. Chairman, a major organizational change was started very early this year. To regularize reporting and accountability, the ministry now has, I am pleased to say, three main divisions under three assistant deputy ministers. The culture, heritage and recreation division reports through Alan Turner, who is known to many members of this House and to many people in British Columbia; the government services division is responsible through Barry Kelsey; and the finance and administration division is headed by Jerry Woytak. These men, with Gerald Cross, the Deputy Provincial Secretary and deputy minister of government services, in my view — and I think in view of the ministry — constitute a significantly strengthened senior management team for this fairly major ministry.

A beginning has been made in restructuring the estimates to correspond with this new organization; but, admittedly, Mr. Chairman, that is going to take some time. Some of these changes were started before the estimates were prepared and printed, and are reflected in the material which is before the committee. The remaining changes will be evident in the estimates which come before the House for the 1980-81 fiscal year.

In opening the discussion of the estimates for the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services, I would point out that a number of significant developments have taken place recently in the ministry, or are planned for the fiscal year which is now under review. I am pleased to report, first of all, Mr. Chairman, that we have developed funding guidelines for all major funding programs now operating in this ministry. These include lotteries, the Cultural Fund, the First Citizens Fund and the Recreational Facilities Assistance Program. These guidelines are avail-

[ Page 985 ]

able, and I hope they will be of benefit to members of the House and to constituents throughout British Columbia.

Recently the Provincial Capital Commission was transferred to this ministry, but I should point out that was a very recent move. In terms of legislation, we have discussed work that will start relatively shortly on the Victoria Conference Centre, to be located on waterfront property owned by the Crown provincial on Wharf Street. The basic outline for this building is nearing completion; construction could start in the 1979-80 winter period. The Victoria Conference Centre will be built under the guidance of the Provincial Capital Commission. In anticipation of the opening of that centre in 1981, I have directed the ministry to look to the feasibility of hosting a major cultural event attracting performers from many Pacific Rim nations. We see the convention centre as an important activity — a focal point, if you will — for our Pacific Rim neighbours, and we believe that it has a great future for Victoria and British Columbia, and that a major cultural gathering would go a long way to introduce the centre to the Pacific Rim and to our own citizens.

I want to conclude the opening remarks by mentioning one or two anticipated events which figure largely in this ministry. Some weeks ago we formally applied to the International Bureau of Expositions for the right to host an accredited international exposition, with the theme of transportation, to mark Vancouver's centenary in 1986. It would be known as "Transpo '86." Our initial application was very well received by many of the 37 nations which rule on such major international expositions. That proposal is now under review and we will learn later this year, possibly as late as December, whether the IBE will accept it in principle, and that probably would be concurrent with a full inquiry, as is the practice of the IBE. With the world looking at many difficult energy problems now, I think we must begin addressing ourselves to the important transportation questions which impact on all people, British Columbians no less than others. By this time next year — or perhaps a shade earlier, Mr. Chairman — I hope to be able to report to you that British Columbia's contribution to the world, as we approach the year 2000, will indeed be an international exposition, at which all of the major nations of the world interested in and involved with transportation may exhibit their solutions to the transportation problems which lie ahead.

Another important event which is, I think, of interest to many members is the opening this fall of the new, major public gallery at our Provincial Museum. I digress from the prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman, to observe that a representative of the Edinburgh Festival was in our museum last Friday and declared — and I think we can all take pride in this — that it is truly, in his view — and he has seen many of them — one of the world's great museums. I know that members on both sides of this House share the pride of all British Columbians that our museum was recently called the best of its kind in the world by other internationally known and respected experts on museums. That is not to the credit of this government; it is not to the credit of the former government; it is to the credit of succeeding governments and those individuals who have worked in and for the museum. The gallery will open in November or December — it is a little difficult to be precise about the time — and it will depict the natural history of British Columbia, including a visit, which I think will be fascinating, beneath the surface of the sea. The prehistory of the province will be brought to life.

Mr. Chairman, I think you have now, in the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services, a fine combination of a variety of activities and responsibilities which hitherto were spread over two, three or four ministries. We — the deputy, the assistant ministers and I — are working to make it an even more efficient, effective and accountable ministry, and I look forward to discussing any questions which members have in that respect.

MRS. DAILLY: I wish to thank the minister for his opening remarks. He certainly does have a ministry which is very varied and, I am sure, very interesting to administer. As a critic of the ministry, it's somewhat difficult, because it's so multifaceted, to get a handle on this kind of ministry. But I'm sure by the time we are all back here next year, or whenever the Premier decides to call us back into session, we'll have a better picture of the many areas this minister is now responsible for. So the main areas I'm going to discuss with the minister tonight and ask him questions about are areas which have been under the jurisdiction of this ministry in the past. They are areas which have caused us the most concern during the last several years.

The first area I want to go over — I realize estimates should be a question time and not just a speech time, Mr. Minister — is lotteries. As the minister knows, I on behalf of our party have expressed considerable concern about the way and the manner in which the lottery fund has been handled by the Social Credit government. Under the former Provincial Secretary it came to light that there was no question at all that the lottery funds of this province were being handed out in a highly political manner.

I have in front of me an editorial from the Victoria Times, which at the time when there was an exposure worked out some interesting statistics. It pointed out that if you followed the proportional representation by seats of the Social Credit Party and the NDP at the time of the last election, before this election, in the former House, you would have found out that if it had been handed out fairly, 68 percent of the lottery grant should have gone to Social Credit ridings, and the rest to the opposition ridings. As we're all aware, at that time the breakdown was 35 Social Credit MLAs, and we had the 18 MLAs for the NDP. But the interesting thing we found out was that if you broke down the grant, as handed out by the former Provincial Secretary, a full 94 percent of the grant — and I'm referring to the miscellaneous section, which was open for complete political discretion — went to Socred ridings.

The new minister has taken this over, and therefore we have been ready to give him time to see how he is going to handle the issuance of the lottery fund money. In all fairness, I will say that he has made an attempt to make sure that there is a proper publication of those grants. For the first time we find those in front of us. That is something positive. But I have to remind the House that this was done at the urging of the NDP. But it was done and acceded to by the minister, so now we have a chance to analyse what is happening today. Generally speaking, I would say that on the whole the minister is attempting to apportion these out on a less political manner. Now I have to say "less political manner" because since the minister took over there have been a couple of things that have happened that do concern me. I have a specific question now, and it's back to a recent

[ Page 986 ]

grant that was made by the ministry to the Saltspring Island Golf Club. There are many grants I could question, but I'm not going to go through them all this evening in this House. So I'm picking out a couple. I hope that in bringing these to the minister's attention he can explain to us the basis on which he grants these lottery funds. The Saltspring Island Golf Club — I'm not positive, but I believe it could be a golf club which people use by membership only; I can be corrected on that — was recently given $75,000 from the lottery fund for an irrigation system for this golf course. At the same time, the people on Saltspring Island, the recreation commission and others, have really questioned this grant. They say: "Look, we need a swimming pool, where all of our citizens can benefit." Basically what they are asking is the same kind of question I'm asking the minister: How was this decision made? Who made it? Can he give us the rationale for giving this grant out of lottery funds to this particular golf club?

At the same time, I have an article in front of me, and a report — and I think that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) would find this interesting. The Lady Minto Gulf Islands Hospital is under considerable pressure to try to provide proper patient care because of the cutback by the Minister of Health. In no way am I suggesting that lottery funds, as do the Irish Sweepstake funds, should go for hospitals, because the whole premise of lottery funds is that they should not go for something that has to be ongoing. The people cannot help but be somewhat cynical when they see government moneys taken from them — but they themselves have decided to buy those tickets — and channelled through the government to such things as an irrigation system, when we have so many other areas that need help.

Another thing that concerns me about the minister's administration of the lottery funds is that I find that even in his own area, in Saanich, money was handed out for a breakwater study. Somehow or other, Mr. Chairman, that's stretching the use of lottery funds, in my opinion.

I am open, and I'm sure the other members of the House are open, to hear the rationale from the minister for just two of these funds. I think if we can get an answer, maybe we can get an idea of how he has decided to allocate these funds. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, our concern is that the way it is handled now is too political. The lottery funds must be taken out of the political realm.

We could end up with a minister who is very, very non-partisan about handing out the moneys, but that is not the point. The point is they should not be left in the hands of a minister to administer. As some people say, the lottery funds really, in essence, are a form of taxation, if you want to carry it to that extreme.

In the province of Quebec, which we know had a lot of problems with lottery moneys, they have a policy where they say lottery funds should go into general revenue. Frankly that would frighten me, Mr. Chairman, with this government because I am concerned about their priorities. If it went into general revenue perhaps one minister alone would not have the complete political discretion to hand out the moneys in a very highly partisan way, as the former minister in charge of this lottery fund obviously did.

I found many people in this province who buy lottery tickets are very concerned that the lottery tickets should not be used by one political party to further their own political aims and objectives. It became very obvious before the last election that this is what was happening.

We have a new minister, and I think we're all ready with open minds to hear how he intends to see that politics will be taken out of the granting of lottery funds. I'd be very interested in hearing his reaction and what his plans are. I understand he says a booklet will come out. We're still waiting for it. I think he has the responsibility, if he and his government insist on maintaining it in a highly political way under a minister. He therefore has a responsibility to let all the citizens of B.C., and certainly the members of this Legislature, know what criteria you are going to use for granting funds. No one knows, outside of the ones that go for medical research, which is obviously done by a committee. We don't know how the miscellaneous funds are handed out. I think this government and the minister owe it to the people of this province who buy lottery tickets to lay it out very clearly and specifically exactly how you make these decisions. I also think you should inform the citizens of B.C. what your priorities are when it comes to granting lottery grants. Are your priorities in favour of irrigation systems for private golf clubs versus a swimming pool grant which could benefit the majority of citizens?

I think you should stand up, Mr. Minister, and give us an idea. I don't think anyone in this province is really satisfied, and I found out this crosses party lines. It doesn't matter what political party you belong to, because even a Social Crediter may say: "Well, if it stays too long in the hands of politicians what's going to happen eventually?"

So I suggest this be well looked into by the minister. I hope he will answer us very specifically.

I would like to go on to another point — another question, Mr. Minister — on another area which we feel has some very high political overtones in your department. That is the whole area of the Queen's Printer. It shouldn't have highly political overtones, and I can't place the blame entirely on you, Mr. Minister, except that you are the one responsible for this vote. We're all aware there's never before been a government that has so abused this vote as the Social Credit government of this province. We have the evidence. It's been given to us prior to the last election. We're all aware of it. When the B.C. Government News was put out, and rushed out just to hit the deadline before the election, it was blatant political misuse of the Queen's Printer and the taxpayers' money.

I listened to the member for Vancouver East, who had to wait a long time to get an answer from the minister. We can understand why, because I'm sure the minister was embarrassed himself. I'm sure he had to check with the Premier to find out what kind of answer to give. The minister did give an answer. He referred to the fact that there were, I think, four extra people hired to put out this special edition. He talked about them going to Vancouver, and talked about a certain amount of overtime. But the big question, the major question to this minister, is why this paper was allowed to go out as a straight piece of political propaganda under the stamp of the Queen's Printer. Why should the people of British Columbia, who are made up of all political parties, have to pay overtime and have to pay for extra staff, Mr. Chairman, to put out a piece of political campaign literature?

That, Mr. Chairman, is not the only example. I pointed out a few weeks ago the misuse of taxpayers' money by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who very

[ Page 987 ]

blatantly put a magazine into the schools of British Columbia the day before the election. I want to ask how the minister vindicates this. He is the minister in charge of this vote, and I think you owe an explanation to us. I think you also have to be able to assure us that this vote will not continue to be abused by this government.

I'm very concerned at this moment to hear answers to those two questions regarding the lotteries and what you intend to do about them, and regarding the Queen's Printer — what your future moves are going to be in the handling of that. There are other questions later.

MR. PASSARELL: I have two questions to direct to the minister that have to do with the Indian Advisory Act. What kind of self-determination and self-development can be provided to the native people of this province with grants of only $19,300 in total, a reduction from last year, when the description of the Act says: "To provide status and non-status Indian communities and groups with assistance in the process of self-determination and self-development and administration. The First Citizens' Fund...to provide financial assistance for native community projects."? That's the first one.

The second one is under the Indian Advisory Act, section 7(d): "Duties of the Director." It states: "To study, investigate and inquire into such questions relating to the civil rights of Indians and other matters affecting Inians as may be designated by the minister." The question, through you, Mr. Chairperson, is: what type of matters affecting Indians have been referred to the director, and what type of recommendations have been proposed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before recognizing the next speaker, might I inform the member for Atlin that regardless of the sex of the person occupying the position at the centre table, he or she is still referred to as the Chairman of the Committee of Supply.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat at a loss to understand why the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) would be concerned about the grant to the little golf course on Saltspring Island, particularly when the party that she represents, when they were in power in 1974, gaily and merrily gave a grant to purchase a golf course on Galiano Island out of lands under the control of the Environment and Land Use Committee. There are 3,000 people living on Saltspring Island, considerably more than there were at that time on Galiano. The little golf club on Saltspring Island is open to the public at large, not only to play golf, but also to eat and use the facilities. It's open to children and people of all ages.

I didn't really rise, though, to make a political speech. I rose to ask your leave to welcome a visitor here this evening.

Leave granted.

MR. SMITH: It's appropriate to welcome her, because part of the minister's responsibilities are cultural and heritage. I would like to welcome Mrs. Terry Reksten, who is a constituent of mine, and who is also the author of a best-selling book on Rattenbury, former reeve of Oak Bay, a great figure in the architecture of early Victoria. I'd like to ask the House to welcome Terry Reksten.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I note that others may wish to speak, but again referring to that formidable member in the back row over there, I'd like to get a few things off my mind before he completely terrifies me.

It would assist the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) to know, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the $19,300 to which he refers is the vote, code 80. It does not relate to the moneys available under the First Citizens Fund, which are some $1.6 million. So that's an administrative vote in order to administer the fund. That may help him.

I'm going to turn to lotteries next, Mr. Chairman, because I think in assessing the activities which we've undertaken thus far in just something approaching eight months, we have strengthened and regularized the process by which lottery grants are received, assessed, analysed and made. First of all, we do so recognizing that lottery funds belong to all citizens of British Columbia, in all constituencies, and in all regions. Very fundamental to my approach to disbursement of lottery money is that fact. Therefore I am not in any way concerned as to whether the project which is proposed, the grant which is requested, is represented by a government member or a member of the official opposition. I think that I can't overstate that.

We have introduced a lottery application form, albeit a relatively simple, straightforward form with questions asked on both sides of a large piece of paper, which will give us an opportunity to assess the grant requests without considering the degree of time and care taken in the preparation of the brief. So we're not marking a brief; rather, we're assessing a project.

I have already referred to the fact that we have additional senior staff in the ministry. We have a grants coordinator position. The review of the lottery requests as they come in is very much a part of the duties of one of the assistant deputy ministers on the floor tonight — not that the decision-making is assigned to that assistant deputy minister, but rather the analysis of each grant is very carefully reviewed at the administrative level prior to a decision being made.

Yes, this government introduced this year a report which could be called, if you will, "Where the Money Goes — Where Lottery Grants Go." I undertook to publish it quarterly. We had one within about three or four weeks after my appointment to this portfolio. I think the date was January 5, 1979. We had the second report to bring us up to date, dated, I believe, April 3. We're perhaps just a shade late with the next one, but we will have yet another report in the first few days of August, because again, as we experiment with this tremendous growth in lottery revenues, we recognize the responsibility we have not only to this House but to the people of British Columbia to clearly and regularly report where the funds are distributed, and for what purpose. We have full disclosure — absolutely complete full disclosure of lottery grants — and that will continue on approximately a quarterly basis.

Madam Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I suppose that whether the grants were made by two or three ministers, decided upon by two or three ministers, by all members of the treasury benches, by all members of the government caucus, or by all members of this House, there would be those occasional grants — one, or two, or a half dozen — with which some people disagreed. That's the very nature of priorities in estimates, priorities in govern-

[ Page 988 ]

merit spending, and I think the very same must apply in the disbursement of lottery grants.

You've identified one which is in my constituency, and that is a grant of $75,000 to what sounds very grand — the Saltspring Island Golf and Country Club. Well, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, it's a private club, if you will, but it's a club which is one of the most important recreational facilities for the 3,000, 3,500 or 4,000 residents of Saltspring Island. It has a heavy green fee use, and I say this not as a golfer.

Interjection.

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

Nevertheless, the criticism which came with respect to that particular grant said, first of all: "You're taking desperately needed water out of St. Mary's Lake." Not that you said it tonight, Madam Member, but that's incorrect. They are into a catchment area; they're going to use water which is collected on the golf course, and then use it over the club property in the drier months of the year. So it sounds like a very grand, private, exclusive club. It isn't. It's an important recreational facility for individuals, many of whom are a little older than some of us in this House, and I see that as an ideal way of disbursing money in line with the guidelines under which lotteries are operating.

We continue to develop, to polish, to refine the lottery guidelines that are already in place. Fault me if you will for individual grants with which you or some other member will disagree. But I suggest that we are first of all analysing the requests most carefully, most thoroughly. We are making many grants conditional on further information being received and, most importantly, we are strengthening the audit process. We're going to conduct — indeed some have already, I think, been conducted — a follow-up after the fact to ensure that a grant for X thousand dollars to a project in Castlegar or Dawson Creek or Prince Rupert in fact was put in place as proposed. I think that is something you and the people of British Columbia would expect of me, and even if it were not mentioned in this debate or any other debate, I would not feel comfortable if we did not have that kind of audit process.

The breakwater study, a grant of $5,000 — seed money, if you will, to the community concerned.... It's interesting that the two you've identified are in my constituency. I am tempted, Mr. Chairman, to read back the list, which includes some in Burnaby, but perhaps the committee would like the list to be read, which I can do a little later. There's seed money to a North Saanich and Sidney organization to determine if, in fact, there is merit in construction of a breakwater. But if we're discussing lotteries, if we're discussing this rather sudden wealth we find in British Columbia and in other provinces in Canada, then I don't think the debate would be fair or objective if we did not mention that $2 million will have been assigned by the end of this year for health research in British Columbia; that we have funded ethnic groups such as the Kootenay Doukhobor Society with $120,000 to assist in the restoration of an historic Doukhobor village; and that $20,000 has gone to the University of Victoria as the province's share in the production of a Rossini opera which will be recorded, videotaped later and, I trust, broadcast on some PBS stations in the United States and on the CBC. We should not overlook the fact that, since I became minister, we recognized a proposal from the Canadian Union of Public Employees regarding their Vial of Life Program. That, as most members of the committee would know, is the vial which is placed in the refrigerator with a decal on the refrigerator door in order that the paramedic team or an emergency crew arriving will immediately determine — particularly in the case of children and older people — what medication or what continuing ailment affects the individual who has collapsed or who is in need of assistance.

We haven't talked about the drinking-driving Counterattack or the $10,000 awarded for scholarships in student competition. We haven't yet mentioned the $1.2 million grant, through Vancouver General Hospital, for a major new ophthalmological centre at Vancouver General, matching a grant raised by an organization known as the Friends of Ophthalmology; a grant to the Cancer Control Agency of British Columbia to purchase new diagnostic equipment; $110,00 given to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; just under $12,000 given to Multiple Sclerosis; $200,000 given to the Western Institute for the Deaf to purchase and supply special aids to individuals; $250,000 granted to the British Columbia Lions Society for Crippled Children to relocate a children's camp at Camp Shawnigan.

If we're going to trade examples back and forth, Mr. Chairman, fair enough. I will accept the criticism on individual grants. But I'm building in accountability. I'm building in a review by administrative staff without regard as to whether the request has come from a government or an opposition constituency. We are building in the audit process, which I consider to be absolutely vital.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, to the Provincial Secretary, I'd like to comment just a bit on the end of your response to the member for Burnaby regarding the lotteries fund. You have outlined a number of very important programs being financed through the proceeds from lottery sales. As you will recall some two years ago, the lotteries fund initially was for culture, recreation and heritage. At that time it was somewhat restricted, and those particular categories received long overdue financial help. I would point out, for those present and who are not aware, what happened when your government was elected. It amended the Lotteries Act, and we now have a sort of open-chequebook approach to our lotteries fund.

I don't have that particular schedule before me, but I know it was amended to coincide with the Western Lotteries Foundation Program, which just about allows lotteries funds to be granted for almost any occasion. The programs it's going to are valid and worthwhile. Certainly no one wants to argue on that point. But I would suggest to you there is a trend underway of what should come from consolidated revenue for public support, and which should come from the sale of lottery tickets.

We're talking about health care and programs for various experimental projects in the community which, in the past, have been paid for out of public tax dollars. Now we are getting an indirect tax through the lottery sales. It seems to be on the increase and we have somewhat of a bonanza here. There is a tremendous amount of money coming in through the gambling and the dreams of people who want to become wealthy overnight. But their chances, through comparison studies of other lotteries, have been shown to be considerably less than they think they are. It

[ Page 989 ]

may be a good deal for those fortunate few who are receiving the assistance, but on the other hand, it is a costly program, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the government will recognize its obligations in terms of its regular programs, and assume that through the tax revenue, rather than having any designs that they will continue to expand this particular approach. At the very best, it has its tragic side as well. There are many unfortunate situations as a result of people who are banking their lives on making a fast buck through the good fortune of winning lotteries. I don't have that file with me but it is quite considerable. There have been many sad cases. People have had to go to jail for falsifying documents and selling off their homes and mortgaging their souls, more or less. So it has its tragic side.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have a question that I sort of came upon accidentally in my interest in following the sports programs that are developing in the province. The minister has inherited the new assignment of the Provincial Secretary, and along with it came many unresolved questions, one of which I am intending to raise this evening. I would start, however, by saying that the question I want to raise has a more philosophical factor in it than perhaps anything else. A year and a half ago, when I first came upon the question of how to handle sports, maintain a low profile and amateurism and not to confuse it with the commercial high-profile types of events, it became quite clear to me that I had a view which contrasted with that of the government. So I will say, with respect, that I know almost before I start that we probably will agree to disagree on approaches to amateur sports in British Columbia and the philosophical way in which these sports are best made accessible to people in the community.

Last summer I was in Penticton and had my first opportunity to visit the games. We once had the Festival of Sports in this province which was clearly a political trip, but the result of those games is really a remarkable occasion, and one for which the government should be commended. They are certainly something that we can all be proud of in British Columbia. The Summer and Winter Games have been almost as successful, if not more so, than the lotteries program, because many thousands of people are involved. Families with youngsters, senior citizens, people with handicaps, all kinds of interests, men, women and children — just whatever anyone can imagine — are involved in the games throughout the province. I can be nothing but impressed, and I am certainly not standing here to comment in any way that would downgrade or express any negative interpretation on what is happening with the involvement of those people.

The only question I am raising is one that came to my attention not by my own investigations but merely by comment from those people who thought the nature of the games is that they are not a professional event — not anything like the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games that we all know so well — but really the games of youngsters, 12, 13, or 14 years of age, who are inexperienced, many of whom have never had any competition at any time previously. They are just a local grassroots type of activity. But the people who were covering those games — that is, attempted to cover those games — were members of the cable companies in the province, members of the Canadian Cablevision Association, better known as programmers. These are the groups that, under CRTC regulations, have been given the authority to operate community channels. The programs are localized, non-commercial, non-profit, and are aimed at helping the public to get an insight on local events and activities, including things like school board meetings, debate sessions which are going on in people's homes, and that kind of thing — just a local interest, free of charge. Most of the people who are putting on these programs are volunteers, and most of them are inexperienced and certainly non-professional. However, this particular group of people were quite shocked to find that when they showed up on the sites in Penticton and Kamloops for the Winter Games, they were denied an opportunity to televise and record the events that were happening in their respective areas. As you know, there are in excess of 40 installations throughout the province, and these groups are not designated for reproduction on a commercial basis — they simply reproduce their programs to reflect local interests. When they were rejected, they were obviously quite upset. Many of them had travelled for many hundreds of miles to these two sites, and that was a bit of a trauma. That's really the matter I would like you to clarify.

I received some comments that, I say with respect, are second-hand. I can't make a judgment on these comments, but the comments included rather uncomplimentary remarks about the present managing director of the games, Mr. Ron Butlin, who I understand is with you this evening. I'm sure you can explain whether or not there is any credibility to these charges. But people were of the opinion that decisions were being made rather arbitrarily in respect to the coverage of the games, and in respect to the rights of all broadcasters, telecasters and so forth to cover the games of their own free will, more or less — the same as if you were to call a press conference. I think it would be rather irregular for you to say: "Well, I want the Vancouver Sun but not the Province, and I want BCTV but not CKVU." You say: "I'm having a press conference; come and cover it. If you think the story is worth reporting, then you do it." I thought and I think the programmers thought that this was a grass-roots, non-commercial, low-profile, more or less going-nowhere type of event — other than involving the public.

But there is something about this thing that I would like you to clarify for me. At what point was the decision made that only one network would be permitted to report the events that were to take place during both the Summer and Winter Games of 1978? If you could indicate what the reasoning was.... Perhaps there was a very good reason for it, but I fail to see it. I have had a lot of comments, some of them suggesting that there was some kind of a deal going on, and I would like to have the record straight on what kind of a deal there was. There was some suggestion that there had been a contract, and I understand that there was no contract, that it was an agreement. Some have said it was verbal; others have said it's written; nonetheless, it seems to be binding. It seems to have some kind of force behind it, because people who have showed up on these sites were told to leave.

We have coming up in August the Summer Games in Richmond. The same situation is going to occur, unless it's clarified as to whether or not it's an open event, whether or not CBC, CKVU, BCTV, Channel 10 or whatever are allowed to go and cover those games — live or otherwise — without any restrictions whatsoever. I would like the minister to clarify these points, which I think have a put a

[ Page 990 ]

damper on the enthusiasm generated by the promotions of the ministry when these games were first introduced. Perhaps, before the minister was assigned this responsibility, the ministry was overexuberant or overenthusiastic or just thought that it would be a good thing to get a lot of publicity in the usual way with a lot of glossy print and ballyhoo and so forth.

When you reflect upon what happened to those people who were attempting to cover the games, it is quite clear that they were quite upset. I have an awful lot of material here that testifies to the fact that there were attempts to contact the managing director of the games — letters from various programmers and individuals attempting to get clarification on what their rights were, and on what authority had laid the restrictions on them. By what authority had an exclusive contract been given to one company at the exclusion of the others? What authority would be used to ensure that if some of the other television companies showed up on the site, they could be ejected? Just how much force was there, in fact, behind the restrictions?

What's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, if some of these people show up in a couple of weeks in Richmond? For instance, if some of these cable companies were to show up, what would you do? Would you put them in jail or sue them? What would happen? If it's an exclusive contract or an exclusive agreement, how much force does it really have in fact? Is this a bluff? Is there some document that is binding that you could take to court and enforce? What does it take to make a legal contract? Does it require some kind of exchange of goods or services, some kind of a deal?

We're telling an awful lot of people in the province that they can't cover something, but at the same time they're asking for clarification. They've made representation. They've attempted to get an answer, and they've received no answer. All they've received is: "Well, you know, there's not much we can do but maybe we can have some kind of an agreement to let you cover it. Maybe we'll let you make a report on the programs one week later or something like that. We'll let you do a selective sort of telecasting of the events."

But why should there be any restrictions? I would like to have an explanation of why there would be any restriction whatsoever on games that have been dubbed as grassroots, games that are non-professional. They don't even lead to any playdowns in terms of national or international competition. They go nowhere. These are attempts to stimulate young people, ordinary citizens, ordinary families; just about any description in the community you want to describe will be in those games. It's supposed to be lots of fun, lots of volunteerism. I just can't see the sale of a contract or a deal being made to promote something of that calibre. That's the part that's confusing, not only to myself but to those volunteers who are aspiring to cover their communities through the Channel 10 programs.

Perhaps the minister is not familiar with this specific designation that I refer to from CRTC regulations respecting the coverage of these games, but I would just tell you that there is under section (d) of CRTC regulations — this is the 1975 publication that I have — the following: "The community channel is to give the maximum opportunity for the community to see live progamming. Such programming should include coverage of the local council or school board meetings, local amateur sports, community debates, public addresses, et cetera."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the nature of the community programming should be distinctly different from the programming offered by radio and television stations serving the licensed areas. The most significant fact which sets the content of community programming apart is its ability to turn the passive viewer of television into an active participant. They go on to describe that live coverage is the key, that at every opportunity community channels should be given the opportunity to cover live, not to have to sit back passively and cover events after they have passed.

I know that this is an aside in terms of the things that are going on, because most of the people out there probably don't even realize too much about the networks behind the scenes which are covering the games. But this is the way you stimulate interest and enthusiasm, Mr. Chairman. This is an opportunity to do something really important, something really profound, something like what was done in the province of Ontario. They also had Summer and Winter Games in 1978. At that time they were succesful in having cooperation with most of the cable companies. They not only did the shows live, but they did them in colour. In fact, they demonstrated that it was possible for all channels, both commercial and non-commercial, to live together. The same thing happened in the province of Alberta, where the cablevisions worked together to bring the programs. I'm sure that Mr. Butlin, the director of the games, will attest to that fact, having in 1977 come to this province after having been the chairman of Sport Alberta, and coming from many other successful ventures as a sportsman himself, in honour of sporting organizations. So I'm sure he's very aware of what I'm suggesting, and I just can't understand the basis upon which you made a departure in the province of British Columbia.

There are 3,000 or more youngsters who are going to be involved in the games. Many of these youngsters will not be seen. In fact, at the very best, a network such as BCTV can cover a few highlights of a few outstanding events in a half-hour period that they may be telecasting their show. But with the community channels having free access to cover the events, it's possible that every single one of those youngsters will have an opportunity to see himself later, get some stimulation, to have his friends in the neighbourhood realize some fruits of their labours and to get a chance to know they have a little star in their community. Take, for instance, Atlin, where we have Landslide Jr. growing up.

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

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

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

MR. BARNES: If you would like to answer the question, I'I just give you a few more — if you want to deal in specifics. I don't want you to cut my speech off and then stand up and make a speech. I want you to deal in specifics.

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

[ Page 991 ]

MR. BARNES: Well, the way to help me is to be specific. Would you please tell us what the conditions of the agreement are? How binding is the agreement? Is it something that we're locked into and can't get out of? What would happen if someone were to test that agreement? For instance, if some of these cable companies were to show up on the site in Richmond, what would happen? Would they be sued? Would they be run off the property? What forces would you use? They are now under the impression that they have no rights whatsoever. Who was consulted, in terms of the various organizations from the different communities? Perhaps some of these youngsters may feel that you're taking away their right to be reported on by various other networks, such as CBC, CKVU and Channel 10. Can you give away their rights? I think that these two questions are the crux of the matter.

Philosophically, I think that you should indicate whether or not this is a grassroots event and whether it is really that much different than the Festival of Sports we've known for so many years in this province, in which the Ministry of Tourism uses the events to get a high profile for Social Credit. They even had the green and white colours in the old days. Everybody was ballyhooing and having a good time, and all the cabinet ministers showed up in town, stood up on the platform and made speeches amd took bows, and the athletes were never introduced. It was just a big opportunity for the government to have a high profile for itself at the expense of the taxpayers. I would like you to indicate to me whether, in any way, that is what is happening here. I hope you will say: "No way."

If you promise not to make a speech, Mr. Chairman, then I will sit down. If you make a speech, I'm going to get back up.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: This has been discussed in question period on two or three occasions. As we agreed across the floor at the time of the last question and answer, it is a matter that can be dealt with in my estimates.

First of all, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, I can't give you a legal opinion with respect to the testing of the contract. I don't really think that you expected me to give you such an opinion. I'm not here, in debating my estimates, to offer a legal point of view with respect to the contract in question.

I don't want to make a speech as long as you did — through you, Mr. Chairman — but I do want to assist if I can. In Richmond it appears we are going to have 3,200 athletes — and not just youngsters all the way through — and 793 officials, virtually all of them volunteers. There are 1,700 volunteers within the community.

With respect to the British Columbia Games, we are still in the developmental stage. In answer to your last few questions, if one accepts the premise you advanced with respect to the Festival of Sports, the fact of the matter is that at the Winter Games in Kamloops this year — and I was there as the minister responsible for sport, recreation and a variety of other activities — my profile at the games was, I think, reasonable. It wasn't too heavy; it wasn't too light. I think you'I find it similar in other games.

It's an ambitious program. I really hope that the member, in his concern about cable television coverage versus British Columbia Television — and I never thought I would be in a position of defending television, Mr. Chairman — is being largely philosophical. I was distressed at one point, when the member said: "What kind of a deal has been made?" I don't think he really meant that. I attempted to say in question period that the contract is not costing the taxpayers of British Columbia any money at all. Because the matter was experienced first in Penticton, then in Kamloops, and now with the Richmond Summer Games looming just a few days away, and not, with all respect, just because the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has spoken of it, but because there was concern, we've had a number of meetings. I have not participated in those meetings but I've been assured that they've taken place. It seems that the matter is now gradually on the way to resolution, with B.C. Television understanding very clearly what its continuing role is as far as Richmond is concerned, and beyond. And the cable programmers are not going to be thrown off the sites of various games.

There are certain requirements which are in place because we have a contractual arrangement. With respect to being in the position of defending BCTV, that network — and this is the key to the whole thing, Mr. Member — undertook to provide full and province-wide coverage of the games. So we're not, as an example, excluding CBC, who are involved in colour coverage and the summarizing of various activities which have taken place during the day. We're not excluding independent television stations, and we're not excluding cable television under the terms of the contract which has been made.

Why was a contract made with a television network? Because it was seen as the best and most effective way of getting coverage of the games over a few days — and it's not a big thing in terms of time — to every single part of the province. Then we let the cable television programmers in each community focus in greater detail later, as they wish and if they wish, on the activities of individuals participating in certain sports which make up the games in total.

It's philosophical, Mr. Member, but you and I have spent a great deal of time talking about this. The contract with BCTV was arranged prior to the portfolio change in December; but that's not a cop-out. That's just putting it in perspective. I inherited the B.C. Games responsibility with the portfolio change, and I think the contractual arrangement with British Columbia Television is the best possible way to get the coverage back into the communities of British Columbia as quickly as possible, and in a professional fashion. So, you know, I have nowhere to go. We could discuss it again tonight and tomorrow, and that's fine. But we agree to disagree, as you said at the outset.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Minister; it was very good of you to respond as candidly as you have, although you didn't answer all of my questions. In fact, you didn't say whether or not you were going to table the agreement so that we could look at it. It is a public document in a non-profit situation, covering a grassroots program. Would you table the documents so that we can see for ourselves just what the agreement is? That would, perhaps, solve a lot of the problems.

I would like to ask you another question. Could you indicate whether the managing director sought bids, or attempted to give other television networks an opportunity to cover the games in an exclusive way? In other words,

[ Page 992 ]

how was it that BCTV was selected? Was there no attempt to find out if there were others that could cover it as well?

Mr. Chairman, the statement that I made about deals was not to suggest that there was any impropriety, but merely to ask why BCTV, or any other television company, would want an exclusive to cover the games at its expense if it was not going to make any money? The minister suggested that there was no money exchanged, that there was no deal involved, that everybody just loves everybody else and that they're doing it fo the heck of it. Are you suggesting that BCTV is making a contribution to the games by donating? How much is it donating? How much money would it have cost us had it not donated all of this free service? If that's not the case, are we making money?

To give an exclusive is a pretty significant concession. The minister has said that there was no exclusive, then that it was an exclusive, but with no restrictions — or something like that. He says CBC is covering the games. I didn't know they were covering them. He said: "Oh, yes. They're covering them in colour, and the cable companies are covering them, and everything is happening." But at the same time he says there is an exclusive agreement. Who's calling the shots? How exclusive is it, and how open is it? Could the minister indicate who these people go to when they want authority to go on the site? Do they go to BCTV, or do they go to the managing director of the Summer and Winter Games, or do they go to the minister? Who is running the show?

Maybe you could indicate to me whether or not the document can be tabled, and I'll deal with those points.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I can't table in committee, but I would be happy to table when the House rises tonight, or first thing tomorrow, the exchange of correspondence which constitutes the "contract." The question was asked: was the CBC contracted? I am told that the CBC was asked in 1978, or in preparation for the 1978 games, if it was interested. Again, I am informed that the CBC was otherwise engaged — with, I think, the Edmonton games — and declined. I'll table the documents. Don't expect, however, to see a firm legal contract in the usual sense of the word, but I will table all the documents which I feel will be of use to the member.

MR. BARNES: I feel I should commend the minister. He's being very cooperative. This is the first time in two years that anyone has been able to get an affirmative response in attempting to find out what is happening. In that regard I want to express my appreciation to you. I don't suppose it will serve much purpose in reading into the record the many attempts made to the present managing director to get this same kind of commitment. But leave it that there were many, many attempts over the past two years. Proposals were made by the programmers, and there were very, very discouraging responses from the Premier, and to a lesser degree from you, Mr. Provincial Secretary, indicating not very much could be done. So I'm going to accept your promise that this House will have an opportunity to review this agreement between B.C. Television and B.C. Games in order to see to what extent it is a binding agreement, and whether or not we've been upset and more or less intimidated by a quasi agreement, rather than one that in fact exists. I think if there's a legal document, one which is binding, then my debate would be more relevant than if it's a document that you suggested, perhaps more or less an agreement that is open to interpretation. I'm sure if it's open to interpretation, we will interpret it to mean there will be free access by all private companies, community channels, and so forth, to go on site, cover the games live and operate in any way they feel is their desire. If that's not true, then we still have problems.

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

MR. BARNES: We have a disagreement. I think perhaps as time goes on you will recognize this is a disservice if it is an agreement that is not flexible enough to permit free access to the site. In this particular situation this is no disrespect to BCTV, who have every right to try to cover the games, or to have an exclusive contract. That's not my qualm. My qualm is with the government that is concerned about grassroots participation, and is concerned about encouraging voluntarism. All these people you have just described, who go into the thousands, are being manipulated by the managing director and being told what is going to be the outcome of their efforts. I don't think that's right. I think they should have an opportunity to decide whether or not they want a high profile or a low profile. They are the ones who are paying the shot. It's a public event. It's not a professional event. It's not the same as a hockey league, or the B.C. Lions, or even the Olympics. So there is a very serious miscarriage of fairness, Mr. Chairman. I will leave my remarks with that and hope that tonight, or tomorrow morning, when I have an opportunity to see the agreement, I'I be in a better position to make a comment in respect of whether or not it is something that's binding.

MR. HANSON: I would like to talk to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, regarding a proposal of great interest to my riding and to lower Vancouver Island, and B.C. in general. I'll be very brief. I'd like to give you the information that the federal government is funding jointly, with the Nova Scotia government, a Maritime Museum of the Atlantic, to outline the maritime heritage and history of the Atlantic, and to raise the awareness on the Atlantic coast regarding the 200-mile limit, and the prospects for proper management and utilization of the marine resources of the Atlantic.

Interest has been expressed in Vancouver for such a museum. I feel the logical place is in Victoria. There should be a Maritime Museum of the Pacific and a Maritime Centre of the Pacific here in Victoria, to be built somewhere in the Inner Harbour, in conjunction with the trade and convention centre and the E&N proposals made by my colleague here in Victoria (Mr. Barber). I think this would be a great asset here. A number of times I have raised the importance for jobs in this particular area, for the proper management and utilization of our marine resources. I think that if we had something like that here — in conjunction with the federal government complex at Sidney, which is developing new technology, so we no longer have to look to Japan to provide us with the technology for the management of these resources — and it could be done here, it would be a great thing for tourism and a great way to educate our own population about the advantages and prospects of the management of that 200-mile limit. I would be happy to

[ Page 993 ]

lend any support or encouragement I could give. I would be happy to write letters to people at the national museum. The National Museum Corporation of Canada have money in it, DREE has money in it, and the Nova Scotia government has money in it. I think it would be a great thing and I understand that there have been a few dollars spent by your ministry for some exploratory work. I think it should be pushed much farther or else we are going to lose the initiative or not get it at all.

MR. HALL: As a new member I was somewhat reluctant to get into this estimate. I do not know this new, strengthened ministry too well. I'll deal with the strengthened ministry in a second or two. Let me start off with a couple of questions, if I may, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Provincial Secretary.

He answered the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) regarding his questions on the Indian Advisory Act. I would like to phrase my questions, if I may, a little differently, and ask him if he thinks it would make a jot or a little of difference to his performance, the lifestyle, the welfare, the future of the native Indian population of our province, the administration of the First Citizens Fund, or anything else, if we did or did not have an Indian Advisory Act. I should tell him that had we remained in government into the spring of 1976 there would not have been an Indian Advisory Act following the session of spring of 1976. I think that to have an Indian Advisory Act on the statutes of this province is still a disgrace, and I think we should remove it as fast as we can.

The Provincial Secretaries in the past have usually taken the opportunity during estimates to provide the House, at the end of the estimates, no doubt — or sometime during the estimates it may be mentioned with a list of grants that were made during the previous year — with a long document, one which can't be read, but one which has been provided for a number of years. I wonder if the minister will be providing to us the grants made from his ministry in the amount of $3.1 million last year.

The next queston is one of just simple interrogation, for my own satisfaction, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering where in the estimates there is any reference at all to the transportation museum that was started in 1975. Where are the ancient, old, classic and vintage automobiles and trucks that were so very happily donated to the province in that year?

Dealing with the minister's estimates in general, I noted in the minister's remarks that he talked about a "strengthened ministry." Strengthened can be one or two things. It can be strengthened qualitatively or it can be strengthened quantitatively. Looking at the people hired last year and the people who anticipated staying with the minister, and perhaps being recruited, I see there is an increase of some 62 people. There are recruitment savings on that. I'd like the minister to tell us what his anticipation is at this time about how many people he has got working in his ministry. Of that increase of 62, that quantitative strengthening, 31 of them have been transferred by virtue of him now being responsible for the restoration of the parliament buildings. Another 31 have been increased in the general estimates. If, indeed, half come across from another ministry, I don't consider that strengthening. If he means qualitative strengthening, then that doesn't say much for those people who have left him or have retired.

I would like him to explain what "strengthened" means, in view of the fact that given 828 employees, last time and 890 this time, 31 have been found along the way because of transfer of employees from other departments. With recruitment savings of over $1.5 million, where does his strengthened ministry come from? That statement was made in response to a question about lotteries, which has exactly the same number of people — 22 — working for it this year as last year. If we look at the other criterion of the estimate — that is the total number of dollars, in which there has been an increase — we find, however, that there has been over $33 million in this estimate increased, in effect, because we have statutory obligations in terms of unemployment insurance and workers' compensation. We've got public service superannuation retirement benefits in the amount of some $20 million, and $11 million in terms of employee benefits — something the minister could do nothing about. As sure as night follows day those increased estimates will come through.

So out of the total of $27 million increase in the estimates, $33 million he couldn't do anything about anyway. In terms of the minister's performance in dealing with this ministry and getting more money to do the things he talks about with a strenghtened ministry at his beck and call, we find he got less. Where have we got less? We've got less in the central microfilm bureau, something which we've heard in committee, something which we've heard for some time now, including in the debate we've had on the Systems Corporation, which doesn't seem to be getting the kind of attention it should be getting in this part of the late seventies. Where else? Well, take, for instance, the legislative library — less money is coming in than last year. If there is any measure of the Provincial Secretary, surely it should be on what he can do about things like the library, things like the services, not only within the government but to the members. I'm not too sure we could give the best of all passing grades on that particular estimate alone.

Where else has the minister been making some statements in which we can look at the words he said, look at his promises, his concerns, and measure those statements, measure those promises, in view of his performance upon the Treasury Board? Where else? Well, let's look at the Provincial Elections Act. Heaven alone knows the minister was quick on the draw on what he didn't like about the elections Act. Heaven knows he diverted a lot of flak which would otherwise have gone to the government — and I commend him for it — by being swift and complaining himself first before some others got the chance. But what has he done about that? What has he managed to tussle and extract out of a reluctant Treasury Board that gives the next estimate we're going to debate, Transportation, all the money it wants, and this one nothing? The Provincial Elections Act is down a third. How are you going to get that voters list prepared? How are you going to straighten them out in that wonderful office down in White Rock? How are you going to straighten them out down there where they couldn't even tell me, Mr. Minister, whether there were 135,000 people on the voters' list or 95,000 people on the voters' list? They told the duly-appointed candidates in that riding that they couldn't get within 40,000 people of what the voters' list was. That's more than you've got in your riding, I think.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

[ Page 994 ]

MR. HALL: No? Well, certainly more votes than you got.

HON. MR. CURTIS: More votes than any of us got.

MR. HALL: We've got the biggest riding in the province in Surrey, and I don't know if registrar of voters can tell "S" from a "W" or "S" from a "D," because he's got half the Surrey people in Delta and most of the White Rock people in the wrong place. But the minister says he's got a strengthened ministry, and he's going to run with one-third less money in that particular vote. And so he goes on.

Mr. Chairman, I'll be dealing with and talking to the minister over the next couple of years, until whenever we meet again on the hustings from opposite sides of the House, as I re-familiarize myself with some of the ministries. But I want to say that though on the first appearance we give him "A" for intentions, I don't like the look of the way it's stacking up. We seem to be falling behind in the Provincial Secretary's ministry. Certainly when I see those kinds of figures of employment and the recruitment savings of over $1.5 million, which mean bodies, the minister has not been anywhere near as successful as he should have been in the tussles for those kinds of things that we should be into: no more money for heritage, culture, recreation, sports and fitness programs; no more money for the central microfilm bureau; less money for grants, special services and events; less money for the library.

Where has he done well? Where has there been a 20 percent increase in funding? Where has the minister got the eye and the ear of the Treasury Board, of the Premier and the fellows who hold the purse strings?

Interjection.

MR. HALL: No, no, you're wrong there Mr. Central Valley. Mr. Central Valley, he's got it for public information, for government information programs, and we know what that means. That means B.C. Government News may be coming up every month now. That's what it means. I can't blame this minister, but just in answer to a question on the order paper given to me the other day — for which I thank the minister — we find out that even while this government has been strengthening itself, realigning itself, doing all of these things the minister said, the actual fact is that he's increased his contracting out in the Queen's Printer alone from $2.5 million to $5.5 million. That's an increase of $3 million of contracting-out work while the staff at the Queen's Printer has gone down. Now that's not strengthening departments. That's not making us proud of the things we do. That's selling the farm. I agree there are certain things that the Queen's Printer and that machinery over there can't do, and I know that there is a growing monopoly or at least the beginnings of a monopoly, I think, in certain of the continuous forms and printing processes in this country. I know that there is very little we can do to combat that. But to see an increase — in fact a doubling of contracting-out work from that department, and that doesn't include what's being spent in other departments....

This doesn't include, for instance, the work that's been sent up the valley to Comox. This doesn't include the $150,000-odd that's gone into that little printing plant up there. We'll be dealing with that, I think, at a later date. While this government has been in power, that's what has happened to the Queen's Printer.

My question about the Indian Advisory Act, the question about the grants and the question about the classic and vintage automobiles require answers. The rest is more in the nature of a debate, but if there are any answers to some of those apparent marks of lack of success in front of Treasury Board, I would be pleased to know the answers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with the concurrence of the member opposite, I think I'd like to deal with a couple of matters, lest I lose them in answering later questions. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) spoke of the Maritime Museum and stated his view very firmly that Victoria is the logical place for the museum as opposed to Vancouver. In that respect, I concur without hesitation. Are there any Vancouver members in the House at the moment, well, it matters not. That's how I feel about it. We've had initial conversations with the Maritime Museum of British Columbia based in Victoria. There is a place set aside. The member will understand that it's really just a designated space at the moment for the construction of a new Maritime Museum. There have been some discussions with federal officials about support for it, but I have not yet had an opportunity since the provincial or federal election to meet with federal counterparts with respect to this. I will be doing so.

Vancouver has a number of areas of interest and a number of attractions, if one can use that term in this context. I think that Victoria is British Columbia's historic port, the member for New Westminster notwithstanding; it is our historic port. The oceanographic institute at Patricia Bay on the peninsula and so many other factors simply demand that museum stay here and be expanded here. I am prepared to argue that point in the course of the coming months.

The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), Mr. Chairman, who you will know, of course, was Provincial Secretary in the New Democratic Party government between 1972 and 1975.... Bigger is not necessarily better, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member. I'm speaking about the dollars of the people, and I hope that you will be in a position where you are obliged — not forced but obliged — in the estimates debate in 1980 to say: "Well, you know, by George, it's coming along pretty well." Our positions are adversarial, aren't they? You're going to be critical. That's your job. My job is to manage a portfolio, a ministry, and to ensure that the individuals who are working within that ministry function effectively on behalf of the people who pay the bills. We've had seven to eight months of hectic activity with some new assignments having been given to the ministry, with parts of the ministry, frankly, in my view, still in the 1960s, and I wasn't very happy about that. They're still in the 1960s, and possibly even in the late 1950s.

I intend to ensure that this ministry communicates with other ministries and encourages communication from other ministries. I don't intend to permit any other ministry to take Provincial Secretary and Government Services for granted, nor do I intend to permit anyone within this ministry to take the concerns of another ministry for granted. We're bringing it together. We're bringing it up to date.

[ Page 995 ]

The efforts thus far may not be readily apparent to the hon. second member for Surrey, but they will be. I do not, again, wish to take too much time in referring to the activities which have occurred thus far, except to say that within recent weeks we've sat down and worked on a six-month, a one-year and an 18-month plan for the ministry. What are the tasks lying ahead of us? How do they rank in terms of priority? How do we relate to other ministries? It's going to be a very good ministry, Mr. Member. It has good people in it, and I intend to give it the best it deserves — the very best I can deliver and the best it deserves.

The transportation museum shows, Mr. Member, in the vote dealing with Provincial Museum and resource museums. I think we have an opportunity to upgrade that. We were discussing that not very long ago, as a matter of fact, as to what we may be able to do with the transportation museum, which is sort of tucked away. I think we would all agree it's relatively difficult to find. I have some ideas with respect to that.

In debating estimates, Mr. Chairman, the member has asked my views on the Indian Advisory Act, and expressed the comment with respect to what might have happened if the NDP had been re-elected in 1975. I'm not going to answer the question tonight other than to say that inherent in his question is a suggestion which has merit and which will be examined, which I would examine with one other member of the treasury benches — that is, the Minister of Labour, with responsibility for Indian Affairs as well — and ultimately with a committee of cabinet, or with cabinet itself.

Again, the member spoke about the apparent absence of clout in terms of Treasury Board. Well, I'm honoured to be a member of Treasury Board in this government, and therefore I have a little bit of a headstart. We will be taking a number of proposals to Treasury Board and to cabinet in the balance of this fiscal year, as again we come to understand on a priority basis those things which we think should be done to better serve the people of British Columbia, and the people who work in the ministry.

I think those were the questions that were posed in that session, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one thing the minister, as I heard the questions, seemed to omit or overlook was any discussion whatsoever with respect to that fiasco we called an election a few months ago.

I realize this is the fault of those huge shoes he has to fill. The hon. now Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), God help those people, was then the minister in charge of elections, the Provincial Secretary. We were informed months before that election that there was an enumeration going on. I checked around New Westminster to find out what really was happening in that enumeration. What an enumeration! What a total foul-up! It should teach us a lesson! In 1966, that permanent list we have in British Columbia was purged. It's been 13 years since the purging of that list. If you want to find your daughter who got married ten years ago, you'll look on the list. There she is — right at your house — having a new name and a new constituency. But that doesn't seem to matter to that particular list, despite the fact that all the procedures are followed in getting on the list, and which should act as a purging for that particular name.

The list should be totally purged. We should start from scratch. Anything less than that is an absolute departure from any kind of decency in this particular area. All members are affected. But when you happen to be opposition and you watch enumerators picking out particular areas to enumerate, and not enumerating others — one enumerator, not two as you have federally — you always get a little suspicious. I can tell you right now, Mr. Chairman, that I know my particular constituency quite well, and I might say I also know the member for Boundary-Similkameen's (Hon. Mr. Hewitt's) constituency. He, with a great deal of luck, got in the last time, and probably with a little more luck for the constituency he won't make it again.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There you go, getting political again.

MR. COCKE: I don't know why I would get political in this place. I don't know what a nice guy like me is doing in a place like this.

The election machinery, the election Act, the whole thing, should be cleaned up. What have we seen to date? We saw one Act cleaning things up for the Socred donors, but nothing else has come forward. It's long overdue. The minister has promised that something is going to happen in that respect. If he's going to prove he's a great fellow, then let him do a better job than his predecessor, who, I think, in that particular area....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Predecessors.

MR. COCKE: Predecessors, whoever they may be.

Let him clean up the mess. Incidentally, the mess, grows, particularly with those lists. I don't know whether there has been a time in history when the list has been 13 years without being purged; I don't think so, but it may have occurred. It certainly is due to be purged now. You should start from scratch.

Maybe there is a better way. Maybe there should be an enumeration each time, like the feds do, although that does extend the length of the election, and I'm not all that keen on that particular thing. But if we're going to have a permanent list, let's really take a look at it. Incidentally, we might also take a look at that list in conjunction with municipalities and cities.

Secondly, I believe that if this minister is going to do anything that is really outstanding, the first thing that he should do is get rid of those lottery funds in terms of doling them out bit by bit, piece by piece. Those lottery funds should be placed in general revenue and scrutinized by this House. It's far too much money to be in the hands of a government that isn't particularly famous for its evenhandedness — let's face that — and I'm being overly kind. I don't believe any government, and particularly a government headed up by a Premier of this province who saw fit to have a B.C. Government News delivered to the people of British Columbia.... That was the first pamphlet of the Social Credit Party going into the election, and it was paid for by the taxpayers. If that Premier will stoop to that, then I don't want to see him having access to the disposition of those funds without any scrutiny from this House.

I believe that those funds should be placed in general revenue and should be scrutinized as any other piece of

[ Page 996 ]

information in general revenue — nothing more and nothing less. The lottery fund situation across this country has become a joke. They are huge sums of money now, and they're in the hands of a few people behind that great thieving oak door who decide in private who will become the beneficiary or the benefactor of those funds. It's time we got out of that kind of Dark Age. It's far too much money to be left in the hands of people to turn those funds out as they see fit.

I'm not pointing my finger at this Provincial Secretary, but again the predecessor. When we found that over 90 percent of the original funds that were distributed were distributed to Socred ridings, it raised a few hackles. I must confess this minister has responded a lot better, but no government should have the control that this government has over these funds without scrutiny. Of course, they're going to have control, but they should not have that control without absolute scrutiny. Those funds should be placed in general revenue and we should have access to them in terms of discussion, in terms of debate. Nothing more and nothing less will suffice.

I would like to bring to the minister's attention one particular plea. This is a plea from superannuants, people who worked long, hard years in government service, some of whom are almost as old as the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) or as old as he looks tonight. He was concerned about his estimates coming up and he sits there patiently. Never fear, they won't be coming up tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that superannuants do not receive any of the fringe benefits that are available to public servants, MLAs, et cetera. I think that it's time we, like B.C. Telephone, Mac-Blo and some other large organizations, begin to deal with our superannuants as they deal with their employees.

The minister can say: "Well, why didn't that happen when that government had that short tenure from 1972 to 1975?" Let me tell you, what we did during that period was to put those superannuants back into business in terms of their income. You can only do so much, and I believe that during that period there was a light at the end of the tunnel for those people. Right now, Mr. Chairman, they need some of the fringe benefits that we have; dental care is a good example. I think that that's one area that would be of great benefit to those people.

The B.C. Government Employees Union, I understand, is prepared to assist, and from what I understand as well, they are willing to absorb part of the costs. Now I'm not sure how they're willing to do that, but they are interested, others are interested and I think we as legislators should be particularly interested in how people who served this province for anywhere from 20 to 40 years are faring. We are often only too happy to look at our own propects; but when it comes to the prospects of others, we tend to be just a little bit overcautious and overcareful. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is time some of the letters that the Provincial Secretaries and others of us have been receiving should be answered positively. Let's give a very hard look at providing some of these important benefits to those people who have served the province well. If the minister is going to carry out his promise that he is really going to get out there and hustle in that portfolio, good luck to him if he does; and I'm sure he'll try.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That doesn't mean I'm a hustler.

MR. COCKE: That doesn't mean that he is a hustler. I know who the hustler is over there, and he sits right across from me — he has hustled everybody in this province. I am not going to confer that one on you; I'I leave that right with the Premier.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, those are three questions: lotteries and general revenue; election reform — a complete wiping out and starting all over again of that process — and some assistance to past government employees.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: In response to the comments from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — and I'm sorry that, in responding to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) I did not comment on elections; that was an oversight in going through a list — yes, the election machinery in British Columbia is archaic; it has been archaic for some years. We have the Eckardt report, which has been tabled, and which has been debated. That is one possible start. I don't think we can discuss the need for legislation in estimates. We've already started very early draft work; but it is the intention of the government to introduce an elections Act when we meet in the next session of this particular parliament. I trust that it will be the complete overhaul which all members know is now overdue and, indeed, has been overdue for a number of years.

The member for New Westminster spoke about the possibility of a combined list between local and provincial government, and I've espoused that idea from time to time in the past. That would have to be looked at very carefully; but I do respond as positively as any minister can to any member, in terms of Elections Act reform and the updating of the system, which is painfully elderly. This should have been done, perhaps, during your term. That's not a cop-out; it's just a fact. It should have been done then; perhaps it should have been done prior to that. It should certainly be done now, and that is the main point.

MR. KING: Thirty years of Social Credit, three years of NDP. Come on!

AN HON. MEMBER: You did nothing.

MR. KING: Did nothing?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, call this unruly group to order. I'm attempting to answer questions as fairly and as properly as I can. The fact is it hasn't been done. The fact is it has to be done, and it will be done.

The superannuants, Mr. Member. Yes, I've had meetings with representatives of the retired provincial employees in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I'm shy — not necessarily retiring.

They've been good meetings. We got started. We have announced the government's intention to make extended health benefits available — I'd think the member would know that. But we have some further distance to go in that

[ Page 997 ]

regard. I assure the committee that those discussions have opened. In spite of a very busy seven or eight months, those discussions have opened with senior staff and, with my participation, to ensure that our own retired employees who've served the province of British Columbia well are not going to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I fell into that trap in 1977. It's not going to happen again. Don't fall behind. I assure the member that's another matter which has been discussed in our medium-term program for this ministry.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to address a question to the Provincial Secretary. It relates to a constituent of mine, and concerns a young long-jumper, who has just turned 19. His name is Craig Taylor, and he is now the Canadian junior long-jump champion; this happened just ten days ago. He is now eligible to travel with the Canadian team to France and England this summer. Unfortunately, in situations like this, each athlete has to put up $250 in order to travel with the team. This money is usually put up by the athletic club to which the athlete belongs. But this young long-jumper is rather unique in that he belongs to no club. He has no coach. He coaches himself. He does not have $250 to make the payment in order to go. I am wondering if I can appeal to the minister, under the lotteries fund, for assistance for that particular athlete to travel to Britain and France this summer. He has been trying to raise money on his own. He's been washing windows, but he can't wash $250 worth of windows in order to get there.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We haven't heard about him, have we?

MS. SANFORD: No. That's why I'm raising it tonight. It's a special appeal. He has just been made the champion, which enables him to travel this summer. I don't imagine he has even thought of applying to the lotteries fund for assistance. That's why I'm wondering if he would have a chance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This has not been brought to the ministry's attention, as the member of Comox has indicated. We have guidelines in place. These are available for any member. This one deals with out-of-province travel. There's a preamble, but the member will be relieved to know that rules are relaxed for individuals — that is the rules which precede this statement — so that up to 35 or 40 percent of travel expenses may be awarded. I would think, if you would be kind enough to provide me with the athlete's name.... We're not making new rules as we go tonight, but I think it is within the guidelines which have been established. I would be happy to receive that and move as promptly as possible.

MR. KING: There are two matters I want to raise with the minister. One relates to a question that I asked previously in question period, relating to war veterans' benefits and the specific order-in-council that enabled war veterans employed by the provincial government in the public service to attend once a year medical examinations relating to their disability without loss of any salary or benefits.

The minister did provide me with an answer, which essentially stated that because collective bargaining had moved to the provincial government employees since the introduction of that particular procedure, they were covered at another level.

I want to make an appeal to the minister, collective bargaining procedures notwithstanding, that war veterans who were incapacitated in some way in defence of their country were in a separate category at the end of the war, and by all moral standards should remain in a separate category 30 years after that war. Their condition is not changed, and the fact that collective bargaining has provided one standard of benefits should not, and in my view must not, relieve the government of the commitment that was made by order-in-council to provide them with full coverage and full wages when they attend once a year for their medical examination to determine whether or not their disabilities related to injuries occasioned by military service during the war have been exacerbated and justify a higher pension or have improved and indicate a reduction.

The point is that they were treated as a separate category. A special provision and special protection were afforded to them in recognition of their service to this nation. I think it's petty and mean, quite frankly, for the government to say that now that they have collective bargaining, we can remove the special designation. Surely that is seizing on a rather petty occasion to deprive them of a benefit that may benefit them in certain circumstances, and in others may provide no additional benefit whatsoever. You know, it's not a constant thing. On the one hand, under certain circumstances, they may be provided with adequate and equal benefits through the collective agreement. On the other hand, there may be particular circumstances where the collective agreement provides a lower standard of benefits. My point is that they should enjoy that dual protection in the special designation that was afforded to them through that particular order-in-council, which has since been rescinded.

I very sincerely appeal to the minister, on behalf of a number of war veterans who have contacted me regarding this issue, and on behalf of a number of Royal Canadian Legions in the province of British Columbia who have expressed similar concern, to be a bit magnanimous, to be a bit humanistic, and not play Scrooge with respect to the kind of pennies that can be saved for the provincial government at the expense of people who were injured, and to some degree incapacitated. in the military defence of our country — and the world at that time. It was quite a different circumstance between 1939 and 1945 than anything we've witnessed since. I think there's a very special obligation on the Legislature with respect to people involved in that particular conflict.

The second matter I want to raise — and I can't impress on the minister too strongly my concern in that particular area — is going to take me some time, Mr. Chairman. I know the Chairman was anxious to recognize me all evening, and now that he has done so I'm singularly reluctant to relinquish the floor. I expect that under the circumstances I'm going to have the opportunity briefly tonight and to the full extent tomorrow to make this very difficult and complicated point to the minister. Knowing that minister to be a most patient man, dedicated to the duties and the administrative responsibilities which he holds, I know that he will be just as exacting in his response to me. So I anticipate that we shall be here dealing with this

[ Page 998 ]

very complicated question of the elections Act for some time. Therefore I'm going to be very careful in my dissertation, and very exacting tonight.

I'm not advocating legislative change, Mr. Chairman. What I am advocating is the proper and judicious application of the existing laws governing provincial elections in this province. I want to draw to the minister's attention a number of specific incidents which defied any judicious application of those laws in the election just passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How did you get elected, Bill?

MR. KING: Well, I don't know. I guess I'm just lucky. You know, once in a while you win at this business.

Be that as it may, I do think that everyone is entitled to an equal opportunity, to voting rights. I do think that everyone, whether or not they are incapacitated in some way, should have an equal opportunity to voting rights. I do think that everyone, whether or not they're incapacitated in some way, should have an understandable mechanism for voting in provincial elections.

The particular case that I want to draw to the minister's attention took place in the city of Armstrong, where....

Mr. Chairman, I can't proceed, because I hear raucous voices interfering with my concentration and with my presentation. But being patient as I am, I'm willing to wait until it subsides and then continue doggedly with my dissertation, because one thing I do have is time, Mr. Chairman. I have adequate and ample time to make this point.

The particular case I want to draw to the minister's attention was a floating ballot box that was authorized in the city of Armstrong. It was a floating ballot box which provided a vote, as I understand it, to the hospital in that community and to the senior citizens' complex. After voting it was returned to the Social Credit campaign committee rooms for dispatch, Mr. Chairman....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you nominate the Conservative candidate in your riding?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I didn't nominate the Conservative candidate in my riding, nor did I throw the large rock through his committee room window. I suspect that was some disgruntled Socred. I don't know whether there was a note attached signed "James Roland Chabot"....

Mr. Chairman, on the railroad they used to throw off messages to that member at Lake Windermere. All the railroaders used to go by and throw off notes saying "Vote for Chabot and watch the Kootenays rot." But I would never do that, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think I'm being heckled, and I'm singularly unaccustomed to that kind of thing occurring. I really am.

Mr. Chairman, to get back to the floating ballot box, what we have is a number of floating ministers over there, and I think the backbenchers are keeping an eye on them because they're going to be floating a little more delicately in the very near future. Keep your aspirations up in the back bench because I think some of them might float right out of a job. I think there's hope for the long-timers like the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). I heard of her dimensions. I read where her dimensions were graphically outlined in the press today. I think she has a great deal to commend her, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the member would like to relate this to the administrative responsibilities of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. KING: I certainly would like to relate it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're just jealous.

MR. KING: Not at all, I greatly admire the member's intellectual dimensions.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's most difficult to make a serious presentation in the House tonight. Therefore I would move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled answers to questions on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

APPENDIX

9 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways the following questions:

1. Do the Directors of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation receive any form of remuneration and/or expenses or per diem rates?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) in what form and in what amount and (b) in the case of each director what is their name and the total amount paid them in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

[ Page 999 ]

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) 'Each director of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, except those who are public servants employed by the Province of British Columbia or employees of Crown agencies, are paid the sum of $200 for each day devoted to the business of British Columbia Ferry Corporation, together with travel expenses at the rates which are established from time to time by the Public Service Commission of British Columbia.'

(b)

"NOTE — When the Directors continue deliberations over lunch or dinner, the Corporation pays the bill of fare. On these occasions, the Directors deduct the applicable amount from their travel expense claim."

10 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways the following questions:

1. Has the Government received a subsidy from the Federal Government for transportation needs on the British Columbia Coast?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) what was the total amount received, (b) was this amount paid into general revenue, and (c) what are the details of expenditure of these funds to date?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a)

(b) Yes.

(c) The British Columbia Ferry Corporation has been paid by the Provincial Government, sufficient funds under the Annual Highway Equivalent Subsidy which in 1977/78 was $48,378,500.00 and in 1978/79 was $51,384,050.00 and sufficient of this was used in order to fulfil the Province's commitment in respect to the Federal/Provincial Agreement."