[ Page 5307 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 164: minister's office –– 5307

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Nicolson

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening I was attempting to outline to the House one of the aspects of the Provincial Secretary's performance. It has nothing to do with image. It is a matter of deficiencies in substance in his responsibilities with his portfolio. I outlined a heritage site of provincial and national significance in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. It was recommended in a report and by the Provincial Heritage Advisory Board that advises the minister that this particular site — the Edenbank Farm, one of the, earliest farms in British Columbia occupied continuously for five generations, the earliest dairy cooperative in British Columbia and second-earliest cooperative in all of Canada — was of provincial significance, possibly even of national significance. It should have been designated by the provincial government to be saved in perpetuity to help interpret the evolution of farming in British Columbia. I pointed out to the House that this particular land was not designated and not acquired by the provincial government. In fact it was acquired by a small company called Royal International Equities Ltd., a firm consisting of two former official agents of the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). I was asking the minister why, after that money had been spent to produce a report and after his board — not a frivolous board, but a board of great substance, with great talent and well represented in the community — had recommended that that piece of property be acquired for the province for future generations to help interpret the evolution of agriculture, developments in agriculture, its technology, architecture, animal husbandry, etc. to the people of Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and all of British Columbia why, after all this, that particular piece of property is now a strata title and luxury condominium development owned and developed by the two former official agents for the Social Credit member for Chilliwack.

Yesterday I asked if the Provincial Secretary would advise me if at any time the member for Chilliwack had made representation to him on behalf of Royal International Equities not to designate and not to acquire that land. He responded: not to the best of his recollection. I wonder if over the evening he was able to think that through a little more carefully. Could he again canvass his recollection and advise me if at any time the member for Chilliwack made representation on behalf of Royal International Equities not to designate or not to acquire that piece of property?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer I gave yesterday to that question was that I have absolutely no recollection of recommendations on this matter from other MLAs. After all, this matter took place back in late 1979.

MR. HANSON: Well, I guess we're going to have to go on to other matters, then.

As I pointed out yesterday and as most everyone in the House is aware, the minister is responsible for the protection and stewardship of the heritage resources of British Columbia. He is responsible for the Indian resources, the most recent historical Asian colonization of British Columbia, the information that makes us understand what has happened in our history, changes that have taken place, things that we want to preserve for our children and their children's children, and so on. What I'm trying to point out here is that this particular Provincial Secretary is following along in the traditions of Provincial Secretaries with similar responsibilities in his party. They do very little, if anything, in the heritage preservation and conservation area. I want to point out a specific example.

Everyone is aware that the Indian people occupied British Columbia at least 100 centuries before the non-Indian occupants of British Columbia. There are two specific sites in the Fraser Valley that have come under intense pressure because of proposals by this government. Requests for designation have taken place at these sites. The sites are at least 10,000 years old. One is the Glenrose Cannery, which is in conflict with the Annacis Island bridge, and the other is the St. Mungo Cannery site, which is further upriver and also under intense pressure from vandals and so on. Those two sites should be designated. They should have been designated ages ago. The board has made recommendations about those designations. Would the minister please tell me why two of the remaining three archaeological sites in the Fraser delta that should be designated — they're the last remaining evidence of the 10.000 years of occupation by Indian people in the lower Fraser Valley — have not been designated?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 164 pass?

MR. HANSON: I'm not getting an answer, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I will endeavour to get the member information on that shortly. I have no answer on that at this particular moment.

MR. HANSON: Is the minister aware that only three major sites are left that are reasonably intact in all of the Fraser Valley? They are Glenrose, which is in conflict with the Annacis Island bridge; the St. Mungo Cannery; and the one on the George Spetifore property. All three of those should be designated. I am anxiously looking forward to the ministers response on that question.

I have another example of gross neglect and delinquency on your part in the performance of your duties. It relates to B.C. Place. In other countries — for example, Japan — when a development is taking place in the city of Tokyo a heritage survey is carried out before any development occurs. That situation also exists within our own country in old Quebec City. They at least have the good sense with any development that takes place to canvass and investigate the area to see if, in the process of development, they are going to be destroying archaeological or historical sites that are of interest and significance to the province and to future generations.

What do we have at B.C. Place, that area on the north side of False Creek between the Granville Street Bridge and the Cambie Street Bridge? A letter went forward from the city of

[ Page 5308 ]

Vancouver, signed by the mayor of Vancouver, asking your ministry to conduct an examination, reconnaissance or survey of the heritage resources that may be there at B.C. Place, before demolition takes place. There has been no response whatsoever. In addition, your Heritage Advisory Board — the same board that made the recommendation on the Edenbank Farm that you discounted so that the land would go to the friends of the MLA for Chilliwack — made a recommendation to your office that a survey be carried out of, for example, the CPR roundhouse at B.C. Place, which must be of some historic importance in the development of British Columbia. Absolutely no action has taken place. You had a request from the mayor and city council of Vancouver asking you to carry out a reconnaissance. You did nothing. Your board then passed a recommendation to you that a survey of the B.C. Place land be carried out, and nothing happened. My question to you is: how come?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member makes reference to the famous CPR roundhouse in B.C. Place. I can tell him that he is incorrect in indicating that nothing has been done. Of course, the entire matter of B.C. Place is the responsibility of this government, through the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), and I've been in constant touch with the minister regarding this matter. There is a survey now taking place under their auspices — which I am monitoring — having to do with a survey of the building and the structure itself. It's a very large building, and I am very conscious of the need of preserving, maintaining and restoring important artifacts of British Columbia. I've heard recommendations, of course, from the Heritage Advisory Board. I've been in touch with them, and also with the Heritage Trust.

I'm not relinquishing my responsibility in this regard. It's just a little early to suggest that any decision has been made. We are talking about what possibly could be a very large financial responsibility or undertaking in order to try to restore the entire structure. There are all sorts of possibilities, including taking a part of the building and restoring it or taking the entire structure, but it does occupy a large area down there. I could also comment that I think it is fair to say that part of the structure would be in question as to being designated as of heritage value, because it was constructed in more recent years.

I want to say that I am very conscious of it, I am monitoring it, and I have been in touch with the Heritage Advisory Board. Depending on the results of the survey now being undertaken by B.C. Place, who are the landlords of that site, a decision will then be made about proceeding with a site survey on behalf of the Heritage Advisory Board.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't seem to be getting the message through to the minister very strongly that the person who has done the study on behalf of B.C. Place is Mr. Paul Manning. Mr. Paul Manning conducted a survey of the CPR roundhouse. He indicated in a fetter to Mr. Clyne of the Heritage Trust that the buildings are presently in a state of advanced dilapidation. If that study had been conducted by the minister's branch or his staff or independent consultants with some credibility, we could accept that. But Mr. Manning is the Liberal spear-carrier who is over there trying to facilitate this project; trying to get anything out of the way, including the heritage of this province, to have the development go ahead.

Let's see what someone who knows what he's talking about said about the CPR roundhouse. Mr. Martin Weaver of Heritage Canada visited the site. He was aware of Mr. Manning's comments about the buildings being almost ready to fall down. Mr. Weaver spent a morning inspecting the various buildings. This person has degrees in history, conservation and all sorts of things.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Have you seen the buildings?

MR. HANSON: This man is from Heritage Canada. This isn't a Liberal spear-carrier. This is Mr. Weaver of Heritage Canada.

Mr. Weaver spent the morning inspecting the various buildings at the roundhouse site. What is his reaction to the B.C. Place report? "'I wonder whether we are looking at the same buildings,' said the polite, slightly British voice over the telephone from Ottawa. 'There are areas which are somewhat dilapidated, but the idea that it would have to be rebuilt is ridiculous, quite frankly.'" Does that lead one to conclude that perhaps Mr. Manning is in a facilitating role and not an impartial observer as an advocate for the heritage resources of British Columbia? He wants it demolished and out of the way. Mr. Weaver from Heritage Canada thinks it's a good building.

This is what he says, and the minister must accept the fact that it is not image; it is substance. He says: "What you need is a very careful examination by people who are skilled in the examination of older structures" — in other words, the people in your own branch who you will not request to go and have a look and do a proper study. You have all the capability within your own ministry. You have excellent people here in this building who are doing the restoration work. You could take the supervisory personnel and consultants and architects over from your own branch to review the thing. But you don't want to. You don't want anything to get in the way of a speedy demolition, because that may get in the way of B.C. Place. You're counting on that for your re-election. That's what it's all about.

Let me just quote you another of Mr. Weaver's comments. He says: "If Vancouver were to wipe out the Dunsmuir Tunnel, wipe out the trestle, wipe out the track and wipe out the roundhouse, I'm firmly convinced that people in 20 years would say, 'what fools we were.'" We're talking about the CPR roundhouse, the terminus from eastern Canada. It must be one of the most significant provincial and national historic sites in Canada, and you can't even instruct your own branch to go over and have a look at it. You won't even do an investigation when the mayor and the city council of Vancouver ask you to.

There's an excellent article in the Sun. It's a matter of public record, and you're here facing the people of the province on your performance as minister and as custodian of the heritage resources of British Columbia. I'm telling you you've done a darned awful job of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it greatly helps in debate if we use the third person and address the Chair.

MR. HANSON: In this recent article in the Vancouver Sun on Friday, April 24, 1981, it refers to a small heritage group called The Friends of the Roundhouse. They're quoted as saying: "'The application for designation is before the Provincial Secretary, Evan Wolfe.'" Does that make me feel

[ Page 5309 ]

confident? "'He has deferred any decisions pending the receipt of a report from B.C. Place'" — that's Paul Manning — "Ferguson said, 'and we all know that the B.C. Place study will be heavily biased toward demolition.'" So Mr. Manning is advocating demolition. All the people who know something about it are saying: "Study it, at least; if not, designate it, save it and preserve it, but at least study it. Do something."

Here are some really excellent ideas that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. Ferguson would like to see the roundhouse and the buildings that surround it retained as a transportation museum, a working steam-repair shop to maintain the Royal Hudson, etc.

The government is going to spend millions of dollars bringing in Transpo '86. At the same time, they're going to knock down all the historical development of transportation in British Columbia. They're going to put up a nice, glossy concrete-and-glass building, and all the historic remnants of the the last hundred-odd years are going to be knocked down.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There's an interesting quote here from Mr. Ferguson, but I'd just like to tell you some of his ideas first. He says that not only could it be a transportation museum, housing a working steam-repair shop to maintain the Royal Hudson, since track would have to be maintained into the roundhouse from the Kitsilano trestle, but it could also be one stop on a streetcar tour of heritage areas. You could take a streetcar from Granville Island, over the Kitsilano trestle, past the roundhouse, into Chinatown, through Gastown and back, mostly on already existing track. He said you could call it the Heritage Rail Link. It could become Vancouver's cable car. I think it's an interesting idea. It's worth pursuing. It's worth investigating. Why demolish everything before you get a chance to look at these possibilities?

Ferguson points out that the roundhouse is more than one of the oldest industrial buildings in Vancouver; its location on False Creek, rather than the CPR's other choice, Kitsilano Point, anchored industrial Vancouver in the downtown peninsula. Vancouver's first suburb, Yaletown, grew up next to the railway yards, when the CPR work gangs were transferred from Yale.

I'd like to quote for the minister this last little quote from Mr. Ferguson. He is placing himself in the position of someone standing next to Transpo '86 when it's all completed and saying, "'Along will come Transpo in 1986, and we'll say to people from all over the world, "The CPR ended over there," and they'll say: "Where?" He'll say: "See where those condominiums are? That's where the CPR ended."'"

In actual fact, the CPR roundhouse is in an area that is going to be set aside for park and public recreational use. So you're going to knock down a site of national and provincial historic significance to put in a lawn and maybe one of the concrete-lined reflecting ponds, or maybe a couple of statues of some of our current political leaders, and maybe the seagulls could sit all over it — their provincial animal.

For about two hours yesterday and today I've been trying to point out to the minister that he had the opportunity to do something really worthwhile for very little money, with full cooperation of the owners of the Edenbank Farm, which made a very generous offer to the province that for $1 million a nationally and provincially significant farm could be made into a living museum and a living dairy farm. In conjunction with the local college, it could help interpret for all British Columbians and for future generations the importance of agriculture in the Fraser Valley. When he had that opportunity to do that, when it was unanimously recommended in a study by his board, what did he do? Nothing. He let it go to friends of the MLA for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). He had an opportunity to do something regarding a nationally and provincially significant heritage site in B.C. Place — the CPR roundhouse. A full investigation of the possibility of other historical and archaeological resources could be within that piece of land. When you were asked to do a research study of it to see what was there and make a rational decision based on solid, objective, non-political, non-patronage criteria, what have you done? You've resorted back again entirely to a spear carrier who's doing a job for you over in Vancouver to facilitate B.C. Place. Off the top of his head, he has said that the building should be torn down — that a national historic monument and site should be torn down to facilitate your own personal edifice and your own re-election. Your own board asked you to do a study. The city council of Vancouver asked you to do a study. You've done nothing. You're going to allow it to be knocked down. That's just on the historic side. On the archaeological side I could go on and on.

There are three remaining archaeological sites in the Fraser Valley. These are sites of great Indian heritage value and probably of international heritage value. They are the Glenrose site in the Lower Fraser Valley, which has had 10,000 years of occupation by human beings, the St. Mungo Cannery site and the George Spetifore site. Every one should be designated and protected. Every one is coming under intense pressure, vandalism and development. They're being destroyed. Nothing's being done. It's the minister's responsibility.

What really happens is a very sad story. The provincial government was very proud and happy just last year to have a collection from the Provincial Museum go to Edinburgh. There was a national festival in Edinburgh on northwest coast Indian art. It's not the first such exposition. Things have been held in the past in Paris. There were people in Edinburgh, Scotland, from all over the world. They lined up around that exposition, all around the block, waiting to see the Indian history of British Columbia, " which is of world calibre. It is on the short list among the world's finest cultural accomplishments. Here at home those sites — those museums and archives of non-written historical material and information — are being destroyed in British Columbia. This government does not appreciate or care about protecting and preserving these things. The glossy part — the utilization of Indian symbols, design, art, Indian heritage pieces, some of which are thousands of years old.... We were happy to bundle them up and send them to Paris where people who know, such as great academics and professors, say that it is almost unrivalled. It is equivalent to the finest sculpture, carving and art forms of Greece, Rome and other aboriginal cultures. It is among the finest in the world. It is being destroyed every day in British Columbia because the government doesn't care.

The thing that matters to this government is allowing friends of local MLAs to get acquisition of the properties that these sites are contained on. It is important to this government, when they have an idea in mind like B.C. Place, to bulldoze all of the heritage values out of the way, to get on with the job and to build their own personal edifices. It is a sad story. It is well documented. It is not something I am

[ Page 5310 ]

making up. I'm not slinging mud. This is absolutely correct. I can back it all up.

I think the minister should disband his Heritage Advisory Board. I've given five examples now where he has not paid any attention. There must be many more examples. If he wishes, I'll try and get more. He refuses to act. He does nothing. It's a shame. I'm going to conclude by quoting again from Martin Weaver of Heritage Canada, who says: "In 20 years people are going to say 'What fools we are.'"

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I support the minister and his estimates. Certainly I foresee the ministry doing a continued good job in all parts of the province for all of the various programs that it's involved with. The reason that I wanted to get up for a moment is because we've heard a lot the last several days from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) about all those so-called friends, ripoffs, political patronages and help to people who are friends or acquaintances of the MLA. It's a little disturbing to me, because it seems that any time a person is a doer or any time anyone is an enterpriser or involved and willing to gamble and create employment, if they're people of outstanding position in the community, they are somehow ripoff artists to the NDP, particularly to the second member for Victoria. Because these people have been successful in their own field and are builders and creators doing things and making employment and, at the same time, because they are supporters of our government, hopefully — and so they should be — they are ripoff artists and no good. They shouldn't be allowed to operate anywhere. Whatever they do is suspect.

It seems that the NDP is of the opinion that unless you're low down there some place and they can lord it over you.... If you're a step above that and somehow one of those who's been successful in British Columbia because of the opportunities it offers, you are lesser than the others. You're somehow degraded. You're getting privileges and advantages that shouldn't accrue to you or that are there because of politics. It's disturbing to me because these people aren't here to speak for themselves. Obviously the second member for Victoria would not go out in the street or to Chilliwack and say: "Mr. Unger, Mr. Voth, you're crooks." He wouldn't do that. He wouldn't go out there and say: "You rip off the community. What you did was improper because you were a friend of the member for Chilliwack." No, he wouldn't do that. He wouldn't say that on Douglas Street or in Chilliwack. He wouldn't dare say it outside of these marbled walls, because suddenly he's a big hero here and can speak out. He has the protection of this particular room.

I think it's disgusting, Mr. Chairman. I find it horrible to sit here day after day. It's no wonder that everybody on both sides of the House has disappeared. To sit here day after day and listen to people being dragged through the mud....

After two days of that he says: "I'm not mudslinging, of course." I suppose that he's been telling us that because he's suddenly feeling that perhaps his conscience might bother him if at the end of it all he didn't throw that in.

MR. HANSON: I'll do it all again for you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sure you would do it all again, but you wouldn't do it outside. He also mentions that because some federal bureaucrat has come out and said, "You save the roundhouse at B.C. Place," suddenly the government should run off and spend whatever money is required and make the roundhouse a priority over all other things. I'm not speaking for or against the roundhouse. To deduce from the information the member presented to the House, which is a report made by some federal bureaucrat, or to read from a newspaper only those parts you want to read, not the part in the newspaper clipping that mentions that the bricks are crumbling and the cement has rotted away....

He's not reading that. He conveniently reads just that which he wishes to read in order to leave a particular impression in the House. On the basis of that he says that the Provincial Secretary is not doing his job, and the heritage committee should be disbanded. He says: "I've got the evidence: these newspaper clippings and this report from the federal bureaucrat which, in effect, say we should spend all the moneys and rush out and preserve a round building."

Again, I'm not speaking for or against it. I'm only referring to the evidence which the member presented in support of his argument. It's very easy for some federal bureaucrat to come out here. They do it all the time. I don't know Mr. Weaver. He may be the finest gentleman in the world. I'm not speaking against him. I'm only saying, hon. second member for Victoria, that it's very easy for you to sit in this House and be a member who seldom gets much beyond Victoria and knows little about the rest of the province. You just admitted yourself that you've never seen the roundhouse and you're only acting upon these newspaper reports. I want you to know that an awful lot of bureaucrats come here from Ottawa recommending that certain things be done and that a lot of money be spent, but the provincial taxpayers pay. The federal government contributes very little to British Columbia. They're constantly taking from British Columbia. When it comes to returning, no, they don't.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) shakes his head. I can appreciate you doing that, hon. member, because the socialists in Ottawa don't vary too much from the socialists in Victoria. That's why you're getting along so well on the constitution. You're prepared to give away the revenue resources and you're so happy with a Bill of Rights that denies people the right to own property. Sure, that's why. You shake your head. You're like the Ottawa socialists. I don't see too much difference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 164, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, in speaking in support of the estimates I particularly wanted to make reference to all that we've heard over the last several days. Good citizens who contribute an awful lot to the welfare and well-being of the community, who are responsible for providing the moneys that make it possible for MLAs to be paid a wealthy stipend, who pay taxes to make it possible for these walls to be marble and the panelling to be oak and who make it possible for us to spend an awful lot of money in the constituency which the second member for Victoria represents, don't deserve to be smeared or labelled in some way on the basis of no evidence at all except to say that they're friends of an MLA and they're Social Credit supporters. I should hope that they are Social Credit supporters. Every person who is an enterpriser and wants to see things done, is a builder, prefers to give as opposed to take, prefers to do things for himself as opposed to having government do things for him.... I would hope that every one of those people is a Social Credit supporter and not an NDP supporter. But do not, for that, label them somehow as crooks or ripoff artists.

[ Page 5311 ]

These are good people. I happen to know them too, all the ones that you mentioned. I'm proud of the fact that they're British Columbians and contributors. I don't stand here tearing them down. I don't stand here tearing down any friends of the NDP. If people wish to be NDP supporters, and in return, as all citizens do, receive some benefit from government, that doesn't make them crooks or ripoff artists. Being an NDPer or a Social Crediter doesn't make you a crook. I can't impress enough upon the House that this had to be said in response to the allegations made.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back briefly to the matter of the CPR roundhouse and B.C. Place, which the member alluded to earlier. He continues to want to depict this ministry and government as moving ahead to demolish the roundhouse. He has come to that conclusion. He wants to tell the people of British Columbia that that's what we're doing; don't kid anybody, that's what we're after.

I said earlier that we have this matter under consideration and we're awaiting a report from the landlord, B.C. Place. I'd like to read from a letter that B.C. Place wrote to the mayor on April 14 of this year. I think it will set out the situation as it stands. The letter states: "In our re-evaluation of the roundhouse, B.C. Place has offered its cooperation to officials of the provincial heritage conservation branch for a heritage resources survey of our site. As well, B.C. Place has commissioned independent studies to assess the present structural condition, potential future uses and cost implications of various alternatives for commemorating the roundhouse on our site." Later on it states: "In deciding the best solution to the proper commemoration of the roundhouse complex, B.C. Place intends to use the information from these reports along with any constructive and realistic advice from other interested parties."

Earlier on the second member for Victoria indicated that oh, yes, Paul Manning, a Liberal flack, was conducting these studies and if nothing else is going to happen he's going to tear the place down. Not so, Mr. Chairman. He indicated in his letter to the mayor that he has commissioned independent studies, and I would like to announce to the committee that the roundhouse studies are being conducted by professional engineers. A.A. Williams and Associates are doing an overall evaluation and in addition a firm of subcontractors named Hanscomb Roy and Associates are doing sort of preliminary estimates on structural renovation. I want to indicate to him that these are being commissioned by the landlord, B.C. Place.

Given the receipt of that information, we're quite prepared to proceed with heritage studies, as the member alluded to earlier. I've indicated that to the Heritage Advisory Board, the Heritage Trust and anyone else that was interested. So we are going to consider further studies. In the meantime that property is not under any threat. I don't think the member should continue to try to paint a picture that we are proceeding tomorrow to demolish those facilities. It is a serious consideration and it does involve many facets. In the meantime, I trust he'll go and have a look at the roundhouse so that he can satisfy himself as to the condition of it.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, he referred to other archaeological sites in British Columbia. Just briefly, he mentioned the St. Mungo property in relationship to the Annacis crossing, and once again he wanted to indicate that nothing was happening. Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been done in terms of the heritage branch on this site. The member knows this. The site work by the branch was done last year by archaeological staff; they've capped the area with sand and mulch and the site has been posted for protection.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: St. Mungo is on or near the Annacis Island crossing and there is an ongoing project between the branch and Highways to investigate the extent of the site. So we're in constant touch through the branch and Highways branch in terms of investigating the various areas and alternatives that may have to rise.

I should also point out just briefly, Mr. Chairman that he indicated that we might as well disband the advisory board and that we're not paying attention to their recommendations. The important thing here is the relationship between the Heritage Advisory Board and the Heritage Trust. The heritage advisory, whom we have appointed, make many recommendations on heritage designations and on other matters having to do with historical value in British Columbia, and the Heritage Trust considers those recommendations and acts to the extent of the funds available. The trust has the funds to activate these recommendations and it's quite appropriate and to be expected that they cannot act on all of their recommendations. I have a list of the actions which took place through the trust in the year 1980-81. I won't belabour the committee with all of those, but one of them is where 17 different building restoration programs were approved in the amount of $325,000. All of these different recommendations came from the advisory, and we do appreciate their research and the recommendations they make. They're providing a very useful service to the people of British Columbia.

MR. HANSON: I have just one simple question, Mr. Chairman: why does the minister not consider designation of these sites now? Enough is known about Glenrose, St. Mungo and the Whelan farm site to designate them. How many sites have you designated in the last year?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the number, but I can get it for the member. There have been a considerable number of designations.

MR. PASSARELL: At the beginning of this I'd like some guidance on what I can say about the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) concerning his separatism and federal-bashing on the minister's estimates that we're discussing right now. I wanted your guidance on this. How far can I go concerning the comments made by the first member for Surrey?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I was kind of disappointed to hear the minister speak concerning the federal Social Credit policy from Quebec. I was surprised to hear him state that. Another part I was surprised at was his non-support of the bill of rights in the constitution. I would think that he would be one of the first ones to stand up and support that. To state how bad it is is unbelievable.

To get back to the minister's estimates, the same Minister of Municipal Affairs stated that his comrade the Provincial Secretary is doing a good job across this province. First I'd like to go through some of these figures in his estimates to

[ Page 5312 ]

dispute that. Secondly, the Municipal Affairs minister spoke in his speech about builders and opportunities. I'd certainly like to use parts of his speech to dispute that too.

The first estimate I'd like to talk about in the Provincial Secretary's jurisdiction is the First Citizens Fund. Last year $107,057 was put in for the First Citizens Fund. This year that figure is $126,700. That's a $19,000 increase. If we break that down it works out to about 57 cents per native in this province for opportunities of constructing local programs and devising things for the first citizens of this province. I find it totally unacceptable. You hardly get a cup of coffee for 57 cents. You get it for 50 cents and there's 7 cents for the tip. That's what this Provincial Secretary has devised for the First Citizens Fund for the native people of this province.

By the same token, last year he was given $640,023 for protocol. He's increased it this year to $869,848. The increase in protocol is more money than this minister is being given for the entire First Citizens Fund. I find that totally unacceptable. There's more money in an increase for protocol in one year than you've been given for an entire program. It looks like the priorities of this government are more for protocol than for the first citizens of this province.

He's also spent $300,000 for Government House. I guess that would be for parties and all aspects that go along with that. That's $300,000, and there's only $126,700 for the first citizens of this province. That is totally unbelievable. The minister should be ashamed for giving only $126,700 — that's 57 cents per native in this province — while he spends $300,000 for parties at Government House and $869,848 for protocol. That's almost a $1 million for protocol.

Moving along to another aspect, I'd like to read part of a description in the vote here. It states: "connected with good government," What would you think that would mean, my friend? That is under "Public Inquiries Act." This is an extremely important aspect, Mr. Chairman. I think all colleagues in this House would agree. Do you know how much money this minister has set aside for public inquiries in this province? He's set aside $10. We see $14,000 to pay a Hollywood firm to build up an image because of this minister and we see $10 set aside by the Provincial Secretary for public inquiries. This is totally unbelievable — part of the preamble says "connected with good government," and you give $10 for public inquiries. What kind of public inquiry are you going to hold for $10? You can buy a cup of coffee and make a phone call up north and that's your $10.

We see some problems in this province regarding public inquiries and the need for them. I hope the Chairman can tell me with his hands how far I can go on this one, when I talk about public inquiries and Amax. There's definitely a need to hold some type of public inquiry into the aspect of Amax and the travesty that's going to be brought upon the native people because of dumping into the ocean. What the Nishga people are asking for is a public inquiry. This government has been very silent in its response to the Nishga, and the thousands of people across this province who also ask that there should be some type of public inquiry. What does this minister do? He sets $10 aside for public inquiries in this province.

You can certainly see where your priorities are. There is no openness in public input for $10. What kind of a thing is it to set aside $10 for public inquiries? You use it in a part of the description of "Public Inquiries Act" — "connected with good government." Is that what you view good government as — $10 worth? It's unbelievable. There's $14,000 for a Hollywood image team, $62,000 for a PR flack, and $10 for public inquiries. I think this minister has his priorities mixed up. It should be the other way around: $10 for the PR flack, 57 cents for the Hollywood image team, and $76,000 for public inquiries in this province. You got your priorities mixed up, that's for sure.

On to another aspect — the cultural heritage and recreation section of this minister's estimates. The historical aspect increased by approximately 5 percent. I think the second member for Victoria spoke about some of the specifics on this. I support that second member for Victoria in some of the specifics he spoke about concerning some of the historical sites in this province which are eroding.

Right now I'm going into some of the historical sites in the great constituency of Atlin that my friend across the way would like to hear about. As we know, the community of Atlin is one of the oldest communities in this province. In the last few years it has started to preserve some of the old heritage in the community. We see the ministry doing very little when it comes to keeping some of these older buildings, which have a very marketable price to Hollywood. They filmed two movies up in Atlin for the last few months — one a good Canadian film, starring Farley Mowat, a friend of everyone in this House. One of the problems with preserving the historical aspect of Atlin is that we've allowed some of the older buildings to deteriorate — and some of the newer buildings, like the holistic pyramid built in the middle of the community.

But off holistic pyramids in the community of Atlin and on to Transpo '86. We see the minister last year putting nothing aside for Transpo '86 in the estimates. This year it's $2.5 million for Transpo '86. I'm sure if you look in your estimates, Mr. Minister, it just has a blank line there for Transpo last year. This year there's $2.5 million. To bring that into the constituency of Atlin, something that the community of Dease Lake has been fighting for year after year is some type of first-aid station for that community of 400. We see that the government can't allocate $15,000 to $20,000 for a first-aid station, but they can certainly find $2.5 million for Transpo '86 for tourists coming into this province. There, once again, Mr. Minister, you have your priorities mixed up. It's fine and dandy to have a nice facility for tourists, and an open fair, but I think the priority should lie with tourists coming into the Atlin constituency. And the 400 residents of the community of Dease Lake should be entitled to some type of first-aid station. The cost, once again, is $15,000 to $20,000, Mr. Chairman. The government can't find that type of funding, but they can find $2.5 million for Transpo '86.

On to another jurisdiction of the minister's estimates — the elections branch. We spoke about this last year, Mr. Minister, if you remember. The minister was cooperative after our initial discussion concerning voter registration cards. That problem was resolved for a few months, Mr. Minister. We're once again into the same problem of residents in this province not having the opportunity at times to sign voter registration cards, because of the tightness of the Provincial Secretary in limiting groups to 25 voter registration cards at a shot.

The branch has been very cooperative with me, because of the distance that I have to travel in the constituency of Atlin, by allowing 200. I would certainly hope that the minister could change the provincial elections branch around so that all residents of this province, if they aren't on the voters' list, will have the opportunity through the Social

[ Page 5313 ]

Credit Party, the NDP or the Liberal Party to go somewhere and get a voter registration card and be able to submit it to the elections branch.

We see that there is an increase of 28 percent in the provincial elections branch. I wonder if there's an election on the horizon. Do you think so?

AN HON. MEMBER: There's always an election on the horizon.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm ready. That's one of the reasons why I need more voter registration cards. I know the Provincial Secretary has certainly helped out on that aspect.

I think it's a non-political issue. What we're talking about on voter registration cards is the right of every citizen and resident of this province to be able to have the right to go into a constituency office of any political party in this province and sign a voter registration card and not be told that political party or that constituency office is limited to 25 cards.

On to another section, Mr. Chairman: the Legislative Assembly allowances, As part of this minister's jurisdiction, we see the allowances as part of the $1,650 each year MLAs are entitled to for constituency travel. This is one of the few areas where we can discuss this, because there's really no estimate for the Speaker, so we couldn't ask questions on that. I'll try not to go too far on this. I would certainly hope that the Provincial Secretary would take some second looks into rural northern MLAs such as my friend from Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and myself. The $1,650 a year certainly doesn't go far enough for us to do our job. It's fine and dandy if you're the MLA from Vancouver or Victoria to get around your constituency on $1,650 a year. But for northern rural MLAs, as well as the southern rural MLAs.... My friend the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) finds it difficult to get around his constituency in the Kootenays and Columbia River with $1,650 a year. I would certainly hope that the minister could look at increasing that type of benefit for rural MLAs in this province. It doesn't go far enough to help us in our jobs.

MR. KEMPF: Take some from the south.

MR. PASSARELL: I would like to. We could equalize it; take it from the Vancouver MLAs and give it to our northern MLAs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How about Victoria?

MR. PASSARELL: That's what I said, Mr. Minister; I said Vancouver and Victoria. Surrey is another one. Let's take that $1,650 and give it to the member for Omineca and the member for Atlin to divvy up half and half. We'd have an additional $825 to use for our constituency travel.

Isn't this nice, Mr. Chairman? We're not having any yelling or screaming.

Employee benefits. Extended health and dental care plan figures in the minister's estimates have been increased by only 2 percent. I think this figure could be increased a little more for civil servants across this province.

The government information services for advertising last year was $8,000; this year it's $403,000. I'd like to know why there is such a massive increase, Mr. Minister, for propaganda. To go over that once again, the government information service last year was $8,000; this year it's $403,000. That's a pretty big increase, Mr. Minister. When we're looking at an increase in the First Citizens Fund of $19,000, or 57 cents per native in the province, we find out that in the minister's estimates under government information services, from $8,000 to $403,000 for advertisement is much too much.

There are serious problems, as I specified earlier, Mr. Chairman, concerning some of the funding that's not available in rural areas like Atlin for first aid stations in Dease Lake, and the serious eroding of the First Citizens Fund by its marginal increase of 57 cents per native person in this province. We see increases from $8,000 to $403,000. You could build at least 23 medical facilities in the north for what you're spending just on advertisement for the government information services.

I think any person in this province would like to know where your priorities are. Is it for advertisement or is it to benefit the people of this province; by giving them the opportunity to receive medical attention in their own communities? If the government has $400,000 they can spend for advertisement I certainly think they can spend $15,000 to put a first-aid station in Dease Lake. Why don't you take $15,000 off that advertisement and give it to the people of Dease Lake so they can put a trailer in there so that if they get hurt they've got someplace to go? Mr. Minister, that's something you're going to have to live with.

In closing, the minister's estimates have shown massive increases in propaganda, up to the $400,000. We see marginal increases in the First Citizens Fund in this province, 57 cents per native — a cup of coffee and a 7 cent tip. For the First Citizens Fund, $126,000 — unbelievable.

Secondly, there is $10 for public inquiries, when we have all the problems facing so many massive developments that don't fall under certain committees that the government sets up. I doubt if too many people out in the province know only $10 is set aside for public inquiries in this province. It's unbelievable. It's your jurisdiction, it falls under the minister's estimate, not under anyone else's estimate, and you set aside $10 for public inquiries. We see 5 percent increases for historical preservation in this province. It's much too little for so many people in this province.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thank the member for his questions. I certainly don't want to be unkind in responding, but he did make reference to our priorities in expenditure.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In replying to him very briefly on the matter of the increase in the promotion and advertising in the ministry from $8,000 to something over $400,000, I should explain that last year there were funds in code 90 which we were advised should be recorded in code 40. So last year the expenditures were $208,000, not just $8,000. There was transfer from code 90 to code 40 of S200.000 of the four hundred some odd thousand. So in reality the increase is from $208,000 to whatever the figure is this year.

MR. PASSARELL: It's $403,000.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

[ Page 5314 ]

Secondly, the member does not properly understand the difference between funds appropriated in the estimates and those which flow from the various capital funds which we have. In the matter of first citizens, he talked about an increase from $107,000 to $126,000. That's the branch estimates, the administration backup that we provide to administer our service to the first citizens' communities. Over and above this, the First Citizens Fund, which amounts to $25 million, distributed $1.8 million in 1980 to these communities for a variety of projects. In addition I want to say we have just announced an important change in the First Citizens Fund policy. We've increased the capital grants from $50,000 to $100,000, the grants to support economic development from $75,000 to $100,000 and the grants to individuals for commercial undertakings from $10,000 to $20,000. We have new provisions to allow for startup or operating grants, and, lastly, to provide for annual sustaining grants such as program directors in activity centres — that's a new policy direction. Those five new policies have been directed to the administration of the First Citizens Fund. Once again, the fund distributes the interest on the capital, and last year distributed $1.8 million, not $126,000.

In terms of the comments on setting aside only $10 per year for public inquiries, that is the traditional method of providing for the Inquiry Act. It's a statutory thing where when an inquiry is called, by law we're required to fund it. The inquiry that went on through the past year, of course, was the uranium commission. Members are well aware that the expenditure was some $2.4 million to support and pay for that commission. So the $10 vote is simply a traditional method of recording the vote for public inquiries, where the expenditures are, placed. It doesn't indicate the government's intention as to how much money will be spent. It would be impossible for us to estimate ahead, through the treasury, for any given year. How would we be able to say what inquiries would take place? This would be pre-determining our direction in terms of public inquiries. Those have to be met from time to time. Therefore the $10 vote has perhaps misled the member but, in fact, we're obliged by statute to pay the cost of any inquiry which is decided upon.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, not to banter with the Provincial Secretary, but he has to understand that what he puts down in this book as the figures is what people read. You talk about code 9 and code 40. That's fine and dandy, but what the people in this province are looking at are the figures that you put down in this book. You say the First Citizens Fund is $25 million. That's not totally provincial money, is it? That's partly federally funded.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, it isn't. It's totally provincial.

MR. PASSARELL: All right, if that's all provincial money, why isn't $25 million in these estimates? The figure is only $126,700. That's too much for you to figure out. That's a big figure for you to even start thinking about. It says: First Citizens Fund, $126,700. I'm using that figure from the estimates. I think that if the minister really has that type of funding, it should be brought into some type of section so that the people of this province can understand.

Secondly, on the Inquiry Act, the minister stated $2.5 million, more or less, was spent last year on the Bates inquiry. I certainly hope that shows up in the estimates from last year on that section, once we get to that vote. That vote now says: Public Inquiries Act, 1980-81, $10. I certainly hope the minister can have that changed in our books.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What did it say in 1974?

MR. PASSARELL: That's a long way away. That's like talking to you about $25 million; that's too much for you to understand. That's six years ago; I think six is too much for you to understand.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On vote 164, the member for Atlin has the floor.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you for protecting me from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

If you say $2.5 million was spent last year for public inquiries, why isn't that figure in there? I certainly hope you're not trying to mislead us, because the figure given for last year is $10. Mr. Minister, it says $10 right here in the estimates. If it's $2.5 million or if it's more, you should be able to put that figure in for us. Why give us the figure of $10? Are you trying to mislead us? I'm not saying that you are, but if you're saying it is more than $10, why isn't that figure in there?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to correct an impression I gave earlier having to do with heritage designations. A great deal of work goes on in site surveys and site investigations. I was asked how many designations had been made. In fact in 1980 there were no specific, actual designations under the Heritage Conservation Act, but there were 16 site surveys and site investigations. There have been none so far in 1981, but several orders are under development. Often the objective is to secure action and preservation short of designation. In the year 1980-81 there were 31 municipal designations under the same act, subsequent to which assistance in preservation may be given by the trust and advice on preservation by the branch itself.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the minister gets up and confirms what the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has been saying, that he's not designating any heritage sites. He's doing a lot of studying and reviewing, but no designating. The reason he's not doing any designating, I suggest, is exactly what the member for Victoria was saying, that he hand-picks the experts who make the recommendations.

I wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) were in the House. His disgraceful speech was certainly one to raise the ire of any member in this Legislature. He gets up and talks about using incorrect evidence and not having evidence. My goodness, he takes umbrage with the rules of this House and says that we have protection in here that we shouldn't have. Why do you think we have that rule, Mr. Chairman? It's so MLAs can do the people's business and raise the issues that are before the public, and should be before the public, and so governments can't hide behind the fear of a court case. And that Minister of Municipal Affairs has the nerve to get up and make that kind of a speech in this Legislature!

[ Page 5315 ]

I want to continue the discussion on heritage designations, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the reasons he talks about municipalities designating heritage sites — and I would suggest that's probably down — is because that minister, the minister of Seaboard, has made exactly the same kind of mistake with the Heritage Conservation Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-one — that's quite a few.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but how many regional districts designated? Not one, because you wiped out their ability to designate by your change — an oversight, another Seaboard on the part of that minister.

I have a letter here from the chairman of the Heritage Advisory Committee of the Cowichan Valley regional board. It's a bit lengthy, but very interesting. It reads as follows. It's addressed to myself and it reads:

"Re: the Heritage Conservation Act.

"As chairman of the Cowichan Valley Regional District's Heritage Advisory Committee, it is my duty, by reason of a board resolution of April 8, 1981, to inform you that because of an oversight, regional districts no longer have the authority to designate any heritage article, site, building, trees, etc. This may seem.of small moment to many, but may I enlarge a little on this situation, and thus possibly enlighten?

"It was once in the distant past the right of any regional district to make heritage designations and to have drawn up supplementary letters patent to acquire this function, and also to enact bylaws to declare specific sites, buildings, structures, etc., as heritage concerns. Inasmuch as most heritage designations would likely be outside municipal boundaries in most regional districts, this would seem to have been a reasonable situation. However, when the Heritage Conservation Act was enacted in 1970, this power was by oversight removed from regional districts per se, while cities, villages and municipalities were permitted to retain this power. I emphasize 'by oversight,' because, by their own admission, the ministry concerned was unaware of this omission until it was drawn to their attention by Mr. George Mutter, a local historian of some note.

"Now comes the enlightenment, or lack thereof. The CVRD planning department began correspondence on this matter back in 1977 with the conservation branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. They quite properly passed it on to higher authorities, and there then ensued a lengthy series of letters between the CVRD and several 'highly placed personnel,' the gist of which suggests that there is such a phenomenon as perpetual motion, and also innate ignorance on the part of elected officials. One of these we have always known to exist. The other until now has been a matter of speculation only. In short, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in a letter dated February 19, 1981 — copy enclosed — suggests that we perpetually lobby another minister until we are able to correct an error initiated by his ministry. This action I find so entertaining that it seems only fair to inform Heritage Canada of our interesting legislative actions in the field of heritage conservation in this province.

"You may wonder why I take this particular manner of informing you of what we consider a basic mistake on the part of government in its amending procedure of a particular act. If I could see no humour in this situation, I would be either mad or angry, and the two should not be confused over the actions taken."

The two points are obvious, and he makes them, Mr. Chairman. One is an oversight in drafting. The act was admitted, and no correcting amendments have been entertained. The other point is that regional districts are in the position of having some important historical or heritage sites, with no powers to designate them as such or to take action to preserve them.

It's obvious that the Minister of Municipal Affairs feels the matter is now in the ball park of the minister responsible for the Provincial Secretary's office, because when I raised this with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on April 6, 1981 — just a few days ago — the Minister of Municipal Affairs replied:

" In order to provide the authority for heritage designation to a regional district we would need a change in legislation. That legislation comes under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. Perhaps you may want to raise the question there."

He wrote a similar letter to the Cowichan Valley Regional District on February 19. It says:

"Further to my letter of November 27, 1980, regarding my request to my colleague, the Hon. Evan Wolfe, to amend the Heritage Conservation Act, Mr. Wolfe has informed me that he will not amend the Heritage Conservation Act. Due to Mr. Wolfe's decision, I will not be able to proceed with your request to designate heritage sites."

This is a disgrace. I would like some assurance from the Provincial Secretary that he will change his mind and that he will assure the House that he will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that regional districts do have the right to designate heritage sites.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Whose letter were you reading from?

MRS. WALLACE: I'll be glad to send you a copy. It's the chairman of the Heritage Advisory Committee in the Cowichan Valley Regional District. His name is Rev. Richard E Stephenson.

Are you prepared to answer? Are you prepared to give us some assurance, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind all members at this point that in committee the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed. I realize, of course, the concern that the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat has. The Chair is simply citing from Sir Erkine May with respect to this item.

MRS. WALLACE: I recognize that full well. I think, if you recall, I worded my question to the minister as: "Is he prepared to tell the House now that he will reverse his decision and take some action to ensure that this is corrected?"

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's legislation.

[ Page 5316 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Are you prepared to tell the House that you will take some action?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I asked the member who the letter was from and she undertook to send me the letter. I'll be glad to look into the matter. I can say that the consideration of amending the act to provide for designation by regional districts is not ruled out for all time. It just can't be considered at this time. If she'll send me the letter, we'll certainly consider it.

MRS. WALLACE: From the minister's reply, one would think that this is the first he's ever heard of the matter. I suggest that this is another Seaboard and another mistake on the part of that minister. Let's hope that we don't have to have a special session of the Legislature to correct that mistake. I want to move on to another topic. We've all been viewing the television ads recently of the Pepsi truck overtaking the Coke truck. I suggest that's not going to happen in British Columbia, because the minister of provincial affairs is going to make sure that Coke stays out in front by making them the official soft drink of the B.C. Games. I think, Mr. Chairman, you will realize that I am in order in what I'm going to say, because I'm going to talk about the B.C. Games and this minister's policy of allowing Coke to become the official soft drink of the B.C. Games.

I've raised this in question period, and at that time the minister responded that Coke had paid some money for advertising on the back page of the program. Why did they get the ad and the logo on the front page 1f they just paid for the back page? They have it on both places. Is that a gift from this minister to the Coca-Cola Co?

I'd like to talk a little bit about just what this substance is that he is sponsoring for a group of young sports people in this province. A ten-ounce bottle of Coca-Cola contains 8.5 level teaspoons of sugar. The same ten-ounce bottle contains 37.5 milligrams of caffeine and it has very little, if any, nutritional value. We know caffeine is addictive.

Coca-Cola is moving to ensure that young people acquire a taste for their beverage — that they become addicted to caffeine. It has been indicated in the U.S. Congress hearings which took place recently that if young people in their early years are exposed to Coca-Cola.... I quote from page 259 of this particular hearing. A Dr. Light of the American medical profession was testifying. Talking about Coca-Cola, he says:

"We have a population segmented by lifestyle where we didn't have it 20 years ago. The effect of the company's targeted campaigning is compounded by life-long consumption habits engendered in early childhood, where the per capita consumption in the under-12 age group is up over 55 percent in the last decade. Coke executives maintain that consumption by both this group and the 13- to 17-year-old group will not abate as they enter the 25- to 44-year-old category in the eighties and nineties. This prediction seems accurate, since per capita consumption by the 25- to 44-year-old group, which includes drinkers from the post-war baby-boom years, is greater now than it was when these same consumers belonged to the 18- to 24-year-old group."

I think it follows that caffeine is addictive; certainly sugar is not good. Caffeine is more than addictive, Mr. Chairman. There is a Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C., and there was a TV interview recently with a scientist from that particular center, who stated that caffeine is directly related to birth defects, for it is a powerful mutagen, and that almost all mutations of germ cells are harmful — often fatal — to the offspring. He said that the substances to avoid were, first of all, caffeine, then saccharine, sodium nitrate and so on.

So here we have a minister responsible for a sports event which was designed to promote good health among the young people in this province, using that sports event to promote a harmful substance for consumption by those same young people — not only harmful at that time, but an addictive substance. It's all part of the Pepsi-Coke war that is going on — the battle on the advertising front trying to corner that market — because they know that if they can get young people drinking their drink, that's going to be a habit they will carry for life.

The Kelowna Capital News carried quite a front-page story on Coke at the B.C. Games. Mr. Butlin, the man responsible, was interviewed. When he was asked whether or not Coke would bar any other drink from being handled, he wouldn't speculate in general terms on whether the Coke agreement would bar another party from supplying beverages. "I'd have to see what they wanted to do," he said — in other words, how much money they could put in. Certainly the Dairy Foundation has put in a good chunk of money, and thanks to the people involved with the games at Courtenay and at Prince George, milk was certainly included. My understanding is that the Dairy Foundation has put in $50,000 plus a donation of shells or jackets for the athletes. Is that not enough money to get their name on the program, Mr. Chairman? How come Coca-Cola, which has probably donated a little more — they're playing in a pretty big league — gets its name and logo on the front and back of the program? How come they get their name and their logo on the front of the program and on the back of the program and get signs up all around the area where the sports events are taking place, yet the Dairy Foundation doesn't get anything on the program, and they're donating that kind of funds?

Going back to the article, the interviewer also interviewed Mr. Thomson, who was an employee of Sun-Rype, I believe, or B.C. Tree Fruits. Mr. Thomson said that he doesn't know the nature of the agreement between Coke and the Games Society, but indicated that the cola manufacturer is out of B.C. Tree Fruits' league. In other words, they could give more money than could B.C. Tree Fruits. "We can't compete with Coca-Cola. I don't like it, but there's not much I can do about it." Why don't we make B.C. apple juice the official drink of the B.C. Games? Wouldn't that be a better idea? It's a local product. It's a nutritious product. It has a very nice logo, and it would look great on the program.

Why do we continue to support a multinational corporation, which is in a life-and-death struggle with another multinational corporation, in trying to sell a drink that contains a tremendous amount of sugar? It certainly isn't particularly good for children's teeth or for their health. It contains a great amount of caffeine, which is addictive. It has medical implications. Why do we continue to take money from that company and put their logo on our B.C. Games program, when we have good, healthy, nutritious foods available in British Columbia? Apple juice, milk — why don't we put those logos on the programs? Why don't we promote those healthy, nutritious foodstuffs for our young athletes in British Columbia?

[ Page 5317 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member is already aware — we covered this matter, I believe, during oral question period earlier this year — that there is an arrangement where the Coca-Cola company provide a substantial....

MRS. WALLACE: Why?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll tell you why, Madam Member. It's $100,000 worth of contribution in support of the cost of those games, in fact. I think we should be thankful that companies like Coca-Cola, the Dairy Foundation, banks and others are prepared to expend considerable funds in support of the games. Admittedly it's for advertising. These matters have gone to competitive interests to see if they were interested, and they have not been interested in competing. To explain once again, as I did earlier in the House, in the case of Coca-Cola they provide a soft drink each day for the athletes. It's not to be confused with the other drinks, like milk and juices, that are provided for their meals. This is at the site of the various games. They buy the back page of the program for some $1,800. They print some 200,000 advance schedules. They print approximately 7,000 posters for each games, and they purchase about 25 percent of the television coverage of the games. I think we should be grateful for the fact that they are prepared to put up those kinds of funds in support of the games. You may not like the drink yourself, Madam Member, but a great many athletes I know enjoy it. Obviously they have a great market in this country of ours. As I mentioned, we covered this matter earlier in the House.

MR. NICOLSON: There are a couple of items I'd like to cover. First of all, I'd like to say to the minister that I'm glad to see that the minister has taken some steps to regularize the distribution of lottery funds, as opposed to their companion program — that is, the community recreational facilities funds. A practice arose under the first Provincial Secretary, who was appointed in 1976 by this government, of directing recreational applications almost entirely towards the Lottery Fund. It was continued under the now Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Under this minister I think that things have been regularized somewhat. It's at least a step in the right direction — a movement back towards saying that if it's recreational in nature, then apply to the recreational facilities fund. If it is another type of grant that you're seeking, then perhaps apply directly to the Lottery Fund. What I would like to point out to the minister in this case is: does he not feel that he should make a better effort to promulgate this change of policy? Indeed when I get on to some of the shortcomings of the Lottery Fund, is not one of the problems the fact that the ground rules have been changed twice in this government? I think that the last change by this minister was in the correct direction. One of the reasons for disparity, perhaps, as mentioned by the ombudsman, in distribution of funds between Social Credit and non-Social Credit tidings might simply be that while a 180-degree change has been made in two directions, there has been no effort to promulgate these changes. People find out about this change in policy by applying for a lottery grant, having it considered for a few months and then getting a response back that they were turned down because it was felt to be recreational in nature and therefore would be better applied for under the recreational facilities fund. I suggest that that is not the way to promulgate a change in philosophy: to communicate by turning down grants, causing three-month delays and then getting people upset and sometimes discouraged because this has happened.

In terms of the people who come to me for advice on grants, I've informed them of this change of policy under the minister. I've told them that I agree with this change of policy in trying to redirect recreational grants where they should be directed. Where people get an application and write in it, it appears that they're not steered on the right track soon enough. I think that there should be some effort to promulgate this change in direction in a manner in which societies and groups making application could do things in the most efficient way in the first place. I'd like the minister's comments on that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I would also like to ask the minister if he is now going to enact the provisions of section 3 of the Lottery Act, which provides for the appointment of a lotteries advisory committee. It's my understanding that the ombudsman, who saw some inconsistencies in the granting of lottery grants and was fairly critical, has recommended that one way to rectify this problem might be to make use of a section of an act already there, which was in the act in 1974 and calls for the setting up of a lotteries advisory committee. Is the minister going to do something about this?

The Vancouver Province put a pretty mild headline on an article of March 1, which says: "Survey Finds Socreds Have Edge on Grants." I think that was being very charitable. I don't know that we've done all that badly by lottery grants in the Nelson-Creston riding, but one looks at the total, overall disparity, where you allow for all the rough kinds of things one might come up with by looking at a limited sample. If one were to look just at one riding and say gee, this riding's getting way more than they deserve or this is getting way less, there might be reasons for that. The Province did a survey and found that the majority of grants go to general purposes and things that might benefit all the people of British Columbia or at least have a benefit which would not be limited to a certain geographical or electoral area. But the other sections of grants that could be located — the kinds of things that maybe benefited a senior citizens' group in some town, village or city — would indicate that there is a significant statistical difference in the distribution. It says: "During the period studied there were 31 Social Credit and 26 NDP MLAs in the House. If lottery profits were distributed exactly on that basis, NDP ridings would have received 45.6 percent of the grants and Socred tidings 54.4 percent." I suggest that maybe the province should have looked a little bit further and added up the total number of people represented in the NDP and Social Credit tidings. I don't know what that would do; it probably would have changed the percentages a little bit.

It says: "During the study period the NDP received about 10 percent less than that, and the Socred ridings 10 percent more." That is a rather significant difference in distribution. It means that with 54 percent of the MLAs, of the grants distributed 64.5 percent went to Social Credit ridings and only 35.5 percent to NDP-held constituencies. When the dollar amounts were examined, it was even more disproportionate. Of $3.5 million distributed to riding projects, NDP tidings received 32.3 percent or $1.15 million, while Socred ridings got 67.7 percent or $2.41 million.

If I were the Provincial Secretary, I suppose I would have looked at this and added up the total number of people represented in those two ridings to act a little bit better idea of how the division was taking place. I know that the answer

[ Page 5318 ]

proffered is that Social Credit MLAs appear to be pursuing these projects a little bit more heavily. It's in the press that the ombudsman has made recommendations and has asked the minister to make use of section 3 of the lotteries advisory committee. So I have another question: is the minister going to make use of section 3, which is there, and continue some of the reform? As I say, the minister has made a step — I'm not going to say it's a great step — in the right direction in trying to regularize the difference between the Lottery Fund and the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. I want to know whether the minister is going to act on the advice of the ombudsman.

I have one final point which I would like to bring up. It's on the Public Service Commission. I have a letter from a young couple. The spouse was a student in the school at which I formerly taught.

The particular person who applied to the Public Service Commission was a person who grew up in British Columbia, went to BCIT in British Columbia, moved out of the province for three and a half years' employment and moved back to British Columbia. Under the merit provisions of the regulations — it's not in the act either, it is a regulation — this person is considered to be a foreigner in the land in which he resided all but three and a half years of his life. That person now has to reside in British Columbia for 12 months before he can be considered on an equal footing with someone who was born and raised in some other part of Canada or the world and became a Canadian. If the other person is a Canadian citizen and has resided in British Columbia for the immediate past 12 months, that makes him more of a British Columbian than a person who was born here and went to elementary, high and post-secondary school here and who has only resided outside of the province for three and a half years. Indeed, Mr. Minister, as I see the regulations, had that person gone out of the province for six months, taken permanent employment, perhaps bought a house, then tried to change employment and to move back to British Columbia, that same person would also have to wait for 12 months to be considered a British Columbian.

I know that this regulation — this principle — has been in effect for a long time. The same principle was in effect in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing in terms of the home acquisition grant, which I once administered. I did change that regulation. Mr. Minister, you do have some exceptions. You have exceptions for people who serve in CUSO. You have exceptions for people who serve in the Armed Forces. You have certain exceptions. What I'm asking the minister is: does he not think it fair that he look at that regulation with a mind to taking a person who was born here, raised here, went to school here, and has only spent a very small percentage of his lifetime outside of this province — which might be a rather enriching thing and which might actually add....?

If there's one thing that I think I should be criticized for, it's that I've been parochial. I've never lived outside of British Columbia in my life. I think that a person who's maybe lived in Alberta would not be so prone to calling Albertans blue-eyed Arabs and forming parochial, very narrow and divisive attitudes towards Albertans. I think that a person who might have lived in Quebec would have some understanding of what it is to be a Quebecer and the kinds of problems that they're having and would not be so prone to making divisive and damaging statements to Canada by attacking Quebecers. We might have a little bit better insight to people of the east if we had lived somewhere else. I say that it's no crime that a person should leave the province of British Columbia and work somewhere else, whether it be in the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Quebec or somewhere else. I think that the principle of a preference for British Columbians is not a bad idea. The definition of who is a British Columbian is something that deserves a little bit more attention. To me a person who has moved to British Columbia in the last 12 months is certainly no more of a British Columbian than a person who was born here, went to school here and whose mother, father and in-laws all live here in British Columbia and who has been educated in post-secondary education and gone outside the province. I would ask the minister if he is willing to re-examine that definition. As I say, it has been broadened to some extent to cover people who served under CUSO, people in the RCMP, people who have worked in national defence or in the Armed Forces and people who've been in CIDA. Could he not examine this from the point of view of how we treat our sons and daughters who go out and broaden themselves a little bit, for some reason or another, and then return to British Columbia having had that outside and broadening experience, which I think would help them to serve us not only as better British Columbians, but better Canadians.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll be happy to provide an answer to that question, perhaps more specifically this afternoon. I see by the clock that it's about 12 o'clock. I move that the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.