[ Page 5345 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 164: minister's office –– 5345

Mr. Levi

Mr. Cocke

Mr. King

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Mitchell

On vote 165: administration –– 5360

Mrs. Dailly

On vote 166: culture, heritage and recreation –– 5360

Mrs. Dailly

On vote 167: government services –– 5361

Mrs. Dailly

On vote 169: British Columbia lottery branch –– 5361

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Levi

Mr. Leggatt

On vote 173: Government Employee Relations Bureau –– 5362

Mrs. Dailly

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This Sunday, May 3, many of us in Canada will pause to reflect on the Battle of the Atlantic and, indeed, Sunday is designated for that purpose. I think it's important for those of us who were not old enough to be involved in the 1939-45 conflict to pause from time to time to reflect on all that happened in those six years. I'm particularly pleased that Rear-Admiral William Hughes, C.D., Commander Maritime Forces Pacific, and Mrs. Hughes, accompanied by Lieutenant Harsch, are in the gallery today for this brief introduction.

In preparation for this introduction the very helpful staff of the Legislative Library pulled out a variety of material and newspaper columns from early May 1941, some 40 years ago. In the Vancouver Sun of Thursday, May 8, 1941, is reported the sinking of the British passenger liner Ixion and the Norwegian freighter Eastern Star. In the next column on the front page, a British United Press story datelined London indicated British and Allied shipping losses for that month of April "will be nearly half a million tons, making the month one of the worst of the war." Similarly, in a newspaper of May 7, 1941, there is another article which indicates that 122 persons were lost at sea in connection with the sinking of another British passenger liner, Nerissa.

Too often it appears that some of us lose sight of the sacrifice which was made by forces personnel and civilians in the dreadful North Atlantic war. In recognizing Rear-Admiral Hughes today, perhaps the House is undertaking its own remembrance of the Battle of the Atlantic in which Canada's navy — our navy — came of age.

MR. BARRETT: May I add just a few words to the well chosen statement by the minister in remembering the Battle of the Atlantic. Too frequently the focus is on a more romantic and just as heroic episode, the Battle of Britain, during the very brief threat of invasion of Great Britain.

A greater battle was won — and a greater loss was anticipated had it not been won — not only in 1941, but in the very severe winter of 1942-43. At that time there was a very thin group which was able to stem an aggressive assault by wolf-pack tactics of the German navy of that time. The Canadian navy played a singularly important part with the development of the corvette service. The number of Canadian young men and women who participated in this particularly severe winter of 1942-43, until better tactics were developed though the joint efforts of Canadian, British and allied scientists, is not recognized. There is a book out by Roskill called Churchill and the Admirals. There is a singular mention in there about the heroism of the Canadian navy at that time. I think it should be clearly understood by all of us that everyone in the Commonwealth played a major part during that war, but there is an untold story about the heroism of the Canadian navy during that particular winter of 1942-43 that should be remembered by every Canadian citizen at a time when we're embarking on full nationhood. I think it is most appropriate. I thank the minister for his statement.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In the galleries today are six students from the Departure Bay Elementary School who are here with Mr. Stanley Burke, who is not a stranger to any member of this House. They are on a special fisheries project for their school that they have been working on for some time. They've come to visit with me today as the minister responsible for fisheries, and with members of my staff, for whom they have some specific questions. These youngsters, who are seated up there behind the hon. Whip in the company of Mr. Burke, have worked particularly diligently on this special fisheries project. They should be congratulated on the work they've done so far, and I would ask the House to congratulate them and welcome them.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Opposition in a special mention of the Battle of the Atlantic, because the navy was very dear to Esquimalt. Many of the ships were built there, and many of the men who manned those ships who were lost at sea came from Esquimalt. The scars of that battle are still shared by many of my neighbours and constituents, and we especially hold a great respect for the navy and all those who served in it.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery there are two lovely ladies I'd like to introduce and have the House welcome: the one I'm always pleased to have at my side is my wife Cheri, and with her is her cousin from Winnipeg, Marny Thegard. I would ask this House to welcome them both.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from the Montgomery Elementary School is Mr. Sitter and his Grade 7 class. I hope they enjoy their day and the debates of the House, and I hope you'll welcome them.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Perhaps we should inform the member for Vancouver East that today's Friday, and we wonder why he's here. You've got the wrong day. Hurray, it's the first of May.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 164 pass? So ordered.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My apologies, hon. member. I did not see you standing. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam on vote 164.

MR. LEVI: I think we'd better get something straight right off the bat, Mr. Chairman. When I get up like this, I'm standing. If I elevate myself, it means I've got to get on the chair here.

I want to take the minister back — I know it's going to be a strain for him — to yesterday evening prior to his announce-

[ Page 5346 ]

ment about a film that the government is making. To refresh the minister's memory, I was asking specifically yesterday about the relationship of BCBC with the B.C. Systems Corporation. I didn't get an answer from the minister in any specific way as to whether, in fact, B.C. Buildings Corporation was advising the B.C. Systems Corporation at any time prior to them being fired by the B.C. Systems Corporation. He did not make that clear at all. He mentioned something about the fact that we don't hold agencies captive. Can he tell us if the B.C. Buildings Corporation was actually doing any work for the B.C. Systems Corporation? That's what I would like to know. I'd like to remind the minister again that they're building a very large building. B.C. Buildings Corporation is the organization with the expertise. What was the relationship with the B.C. Systems Corporation before they were let go by that corporation? Would the minister tell us that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think I dealt with that yesterday. I'd like to repeat what I said in relation to the Buildings Corporation. No Crown corporation is a captive of the corporation or is obliged to purchase from it or have buildings constructed by it. They're there to offer service, I presume, if it's asked for. The B.C. Systems Corporation, therefore, is not a captive client of the Buildings Corporation with respect to accommodations.

The Buildings Corporation has held discussions with the Systems Corporation over several months regarding any assistance they might provide with respect to the proposed office building. The B.C. Systems Corporation determined that they preferred to own and project-manage the construction of their own building, but they did contract with the B.C. Buildings Corporation for technical advice to be provided on request at any time during the design and construction of the buildin. I don't classify that as having fired or hired them. They were there to offer service and advice, and consultations did take place. I wonder if that answers the member's question.

MR. LEVI: I think it's the first time the minister has said very specifically that they actually had discussions over a series of months. Yesterday I pointed out to the minister that because the Systems Corporation went on their own they got themselves into very serious and embarrassing trouble with the Architectural Institute. When they were talking to the B.C. Buildings Corporation — now that the minister has enlarged on what they were actually doing — to get technical advice, presumably part of that technical advice was on how to write a proposal. I pointed out yesterday that B.C. Buildings Corporation's relationship with the architects was finally well smoothed out — the disagreements they had about various principles involved in making these proposals and agreements. That's what BCBC did.

Now after all the discussion that you had with B.C. Systems Corporation, there was obviously a disagreement, because they let you go. Then they went out on their own and created the same mess that B.C. Buildings Corporation had successfully endeavoured to clean up: the differences between the Buildings Corporation and the architect. There was a very serious problem: the question of the role of architects and how these proposals are made. The first time the Systems Corporation went out on its own it made a terrible mistake. Evidently it did not listen to any advice you gave them. They were ill-equipped to do what they did. The minister hedges a little bit on whether or not they were fired. You were the construction managers in the beginning, and then they said.... I would like the minister to tell us: was it the advice of the B.C. Buildings Corporation to the Systems Corporation that they should go out and do it on their own? Surely some warning must have been given to the Systems Corporation about how dicey this whole proposal was — for them to go out and do something they knew very little about. We have the example of when they tried it the first time: they made a mess of it.

Can you tell us whether the B.C. Buildings Corporation advised them to stay with the arrangement they had with the Buildings Corporation? After all, it's a large building, and it was an entirely new venture for the B.C. Systems Corporation. They're not in the construction business; they have no expertise in that matter. Regardless of whether the minister says they are free agents, was advice given to them not to go out on their own? We're talking about two Crown agencies, one with a great deal of experience in the construction of buildings and the other one with absolutely no experience. Did they give such advice? Did they remain with B.C. Buildings because of the expertise they could offer?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I presume that the discussions which took place over several months had to do with a lot more than the relationship between the Buildings Corporation and the Systems Corporation and the architects. I'm aware that the architects have expressed concern over the procedures that might be used. I'm also aware that discussions with the architects and the Buildings Corporation have gone on for a considerable length of time, entirely aside from the Systems Corporation proposal. So any comments that the institute had with respect to the construction of this building really had nothing to do with the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

In addition, it is a fact that the Buildings Corporation just recently resolved a long-standing disagreement with the Architectural Institute by reaching agreement on mutually acceptable contract documents to be used by the corporation. This evolved over a considerable period of time. I can recall some letters on that subject originally. But you must remember that the Buildings Corporation has a very large obligation; it is responsible for all your public buildings. We have to have in mind their cost and, at the same time, try to satisfy organizations like the institute.

MR. LEVI: Let me be very clear about this. I'm not in any way criticizing the B.C. Buildings Corporation; in this they are completely clean. What I'm trying to get from the minister is the relationship they established with the B.C. Systems Corporation regarding the construction and design of the building. Apparently all of this was discussed. At some point in time what I would characterize as a disagreement arose between those two Crown agencies. I'm well aware — and I did say before the minister answered that he need not answer — of the way BCBC has settled in a satisfactory manner with the architect. That's okay. Then what we have are these thundering uninformed people from the B.C. Systems Corporation coming along and making exactly the same mistakes that were made two years ago. It's very unfortunate because, having settled all this with B.C. Buildings Corporation, along comes the B.C. Systems Corporation, tipping up the applecart again and presumably creating some doubt in the minds of the architects as to just how the government is going to go about this process in the future. We cannot

[ Page 5347 ]

separate B.C. Buildings Corporation from B.C. Systems Corporation as both being Crown agencies for the same government.

The minister did not answer my question. Did the B.C. Buildings Corporation advise the Systems Corporation that they should stay with the B.C. Buildings Corporation because they are the people with the expertise? After all, they've been doing this for about four years; they've got very capable people in there who are able to put together proposals. Did they give them advice not to go out on their own? Did they warn them of all the problems they were going to get into? It's so tragic that the very first problem they ran into was the problem that had taken more than two years to settle. Did the B.C. Buildings Corporation advise B.C. Systems Corporation not to go it alone? That's what I'm trying to find out. Did they say to them: "Look, we have learned our lessons with the whole construction community. We know how to do it; you don't. There are pitfalls and we advise you to stay with us"? Was such advice given?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, with every respect, that's a question I can't answer. I don't have the details on the nature of their discussions or advice, so I'm afraid I can't answer the query.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Minister, we talked about this yesterday. I asked if the president of the corporation was here. Is there anybody sitting there from B.C. Buildings Corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MR. LEVI: I find that incredible. We spent an hour yesterday, and we have some more questions to ask, and there's nobody from the corporation. It's pretty unfair to this House that you don't bring somebody along. You used to do this with the Systems Corporation when you were Minister of Finance. You couldn't answer the questions. You didn't bring in the president — once you brought him in. Now we don't have anybody from the Buildings Corporation and can't get any sensible answer. That's very unfortunate. When you do estimates we expect that you be advised by the people that can advise you. You've got somebody leaning over saying things to you who isn't even from the Buildings Corporation.

This is not a new item. If you're tracking the questions that are going through this House, as most ministers do, you would know that this was going to be raised. Yesterday I specifically asked if there was anybody from the Buildings Corporation, and now there isn't anybody. What can your staff tell us about the Buildings Corporation? Obviously nothing. You've just told us you can't answer that question. It's a very fundamental issue when one Crown agency — the B.C. Buildings Corporation — is fired by another one, and the other one has got itself into all kinds of problems in respect to some building they want to do. It's very unfortunate. It's one heck of a way to do estimates.

Well, we'd better move onto something else. Maybe the minister can answer this. On March 19 the minister announced that a detailed feasibility study by the B.C. Buildings Corporation could lead to construction of a major government office building in downtown Victoria.

"The Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, Evan Wolfe, said today that the study will include an examination of various design concepts and cost alternatives for a proposed office complex of approximately 23,000 square metres to be completed by 1985. The proposed site is a lot owned by BCBC, bounded by Humboldt, Blanshard, Powell and McClure. The site is ideal for the consolidation of two or three major ministries presently scattered in 13 locations. 'Some of them are obsolete and uneconomical buildings in the parliament buildings precinct area.' said Wolfe. 'The wide dispersal of these ministry offices makes it difficult and more expensive to coordinate government programs and creates confusion for the public being served by the programs. Consolidation will result in significant economies and improved management capabilities.' "

There is more, but I just want to ask the minister a question. Can the minister tell us who is doing the study and what plans his ministry has for an alteration, change or addition to the legislative precinct? As I understand it, when the transfer of all the buildings to BCBC took place, even the legislative buildings were included in that transfer, but they came back again. Presumably they are with the minister's department. Can the minister tell us what he's saying in this announcement that there's going to be a major government building in Victoria that will integrate some three ministries.' We don't know too much about it. I hope to heaven it's not going to be like that last building they planned for Victoria, which was 57 stories high. But first of all, who is doing the study? That's the first thing I want to know. The second thing is how much money they have allotted for that. But the more important thing, I think, is the question of what is going to happen to the precincts of the legislative buildings.

Now for some time there have been discussions about those buildings that exist right now — the parliament buildings, the building across Government Street, and then at the back, of course, the Glenshiel Hotel. There was some concern a few years ago that because of the increasing size of government, there might be a need to increase the size of the precincts, to expand them somewhat. However, it seems that that's not possible now, because there are one or two buildings going up around the parliament buildings which are privately developed and have nothing to do with the precincts. I have in mind the building next to the Embassy Motel, which is at the back of the buildings, and also the building that's going up near the Glenshiel Hotel — I think it is sometimes referred to as the rockpile, which is now being dismantled. Perhaps the minister would tell us whether there are any plans to expand the area of the precincts as we know them. Or are we, as indicated here in this release that the minister has issued, going to move up to Humboldt, Blanshard, Powell and McClure, by which we're establishing a new enclave of government buildings uptown? What are the plans for the precincts? I might as well ask the minister right now; maybe he wants to comment.

There was a plan kicking around the government for some time for building a new dining-room. Now that's not a major concern; we can.... Are there any plans to do anything with the precinct buildings to expand the boundaries of the precincts? Or are we going to be moving uptown, in terms of all of the government offices, except the parliament buildings and those offices that we need to maintain in the parliament buildings" Perhaps the minister would answer those questions.

[ Page 5348 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult to know how much detail the member would wish, but the building which was indicated in the statement — I think it's pretty well explained in the release — would have the purpose of consolidating three ministries which are all over the place in older, obsolete buildings, and providing for more efficiency and economy of operation, better management and so on. We've already consulted with the city of Victoria and other people on the building proposed, and until we receive the study, of course, no other procedure will be developed. There are three ministries involved in this process, through a variety of other lease spaces in the area: the Attorney-General, Education, and, I believe, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

There is also consideration being given to expanding in a further plan the Douglas Building for the purpose of the consolidated needs of Treasury Board and Finance. Although there is no order to proceed yet, a new building on the back corner opposite the Queen's Printer is also contemplated, which would accommodate various offices of the Provincial Secretary. This is perhaps a little further ahead; but in that process, Mr. Chairman, one would expect that some of the older buildings — I can't specify which, but I could perhaps get the member more information on some of those plans — will disappear and be replaced with attractive areas in the immediate vicinity of the legislative precincts. One thing we want to guard against, and which we're very much conscious of, is the provision of just a multitude of parking lots. But there is an ongoing plan developing for this area.

MR. LEVI: No doubt the minister.... Well, I'll ask him if he's making reference to a report that's been done — he didn't quote from anything, so it's not an issue of tabling it — and if, in fact, there's a report which talks about this. I think that it would be of interest to the members to know just what thinking is going into the planning. It may not be firm, and I appreciate that you sometimes have ideas about what you want to do about the size of the government.

In the discussion we've had this morning I've raised the question of the B.C. Systems Corporation, which is going to have a building out in Saanich. There has been some criticism of the fact that it's so far out, considering the kind of work that it does with the government. We've talked about the study that's taking place for the new government building uptown. Now the minister tells us about a number of other plans that are being sketched out as to how they might integrate the Finance department into the Douglas Building and that kind of thing. All of this smacks of either — and I hope it is — a grand plan as to what's going to happen with government buildings over the future or — and I hope it isn't — a magnificent piece of ad hockery, where they've got a building going on out there that's going to be in excess of $30 million.

What I'm saying to the minister is this. There are three sets of proposed construction going on at the moment right here in Victoria: Saanich; uptown in relation to the possibility of a new government building; plus what he's explained is going on around the integration of Finance into a government building and a new building over by the Queen's Printer. Is there some kind of a grand plan? How is this being done? One of the major principles about putting people into ministries is that if there's a lot of contact, they're closer at hand. Here we have the possibility of three centres. There are more than three, of course. In the Victoria area there are something like 13 different centres. We're building a new centre in Saanich; we're going to build a new centre uptown, which will probably be close to the new building near the public library; and we're here. Is this part of a plan, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, or what? Or is this a piece of ad hockery? Is everybody having a go?

Let me ask you this before you get up: is BCBC intimately involved in the two proposals you mentioned? We know they're not involved in the Saanich one; they got fired out of that one.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Not fired....

MR. LEVI: We're into the old semantics game again. I'm going to have to get hold of my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) to get a definition. They got fired. That's what happened.

Who's coordinating this? Is it your ministry or B.C. Buildings Corporation? Presumably the minister's gone to B.C. Buildings Corporation. They are involved. Do they have some kind of a plan or design or something you can tell us about? We've talked about at least two major structures. You've lost the other one, unless we can do something about those people at the Systems Corporation. What kind of a plan is there? Or is it a massive piece of ad hockery? Would the minister tell us whether all this is part of a plan?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is part of a plan. We've been approaching this whole matter from a point of view of the long-term objectives of the precinct and how it would affect the city of Victoria. I've indicated the basic components of that already by indicating a feasibility study for a major building called the Y-lot Building in downtown Victoria to accommodate three ministries, an expansion of the Douglas Building which is still in the beginning stage and, in addition, a new so-called Provincial Secretary building which would accommodate certain branches of the Provincial Secretary and the precincts. I have a detail on that: it would involve the removal of some of the older buildings which are immediately to the south of the precinct and provide us with a much more attractive area surrounding the precincts in that regard.

Yes, we are working from a plan. The plan is evolving. It has had discussion with the mayor of Victoria.

MR. LEVI: So there is a general plan. Leaving aside some of the economic considerations, which you obviously sometimes have trouble with — the acquisition of land and that kind of thing — this is the kind of thing that members would be very interested in, particularly because not only in Victoria, but all over the province, we're always having these last-minute confrontations around the saving of buildings. The minister has indicated that there's the possibility of the removal of some buildings. Maybe they're office buildings. We're not talking about removing Helmcken House; that's going to stay there. If we've got an assurance, that's fine.

The main thing is that we have never really had — except when we embarked on restoring these buildings a number of years ago — any real discussion about what the future plans were. Obviously the legislative buildings are the centrepiece. They're now extremely attractive buildings. It's amazing that we've never been told about this. If there are some economic considerations, that's one thing. But a general approach to what the plans are would be very worthwhile for the members

[ Page 5349 ]

to know. It would also be worthwhile to know because you don't want to have any last-minute problems, if there are things you can work out with groups that are interested in preserving buildings. Massive last-minute rescue efforts often fail mainly because the time is too short for anything to be done. Sometimes the decisions are made in such an irrevocable way that nothing can be turned back anyhow.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

My question to the minister is: what has he got that he can make available to the members? Is there a report that we could know about? Or is it absolutely essential that we don't know about it? There must be something on paper that you could release to us. I think that would be very worthwhile. We'd like to know what is happening, what the plans are. As I said to the minister, I'm not completely happy with B.C. Buildings Corporation, particularly the operation around revenue. We have not completely explained the massive revenue increase. However, there are aspects of the corporation which are good. One of them seems to be in the planning area. Can the minister tell us whether we can get access to some specific information, without going into detail?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member makes a good point. I think that at an appropriate time I would consider it. Sometimes it is just too early, because of other considerations and certain things that have not been decided. I think that it is a reasonable suggestion, and at an appropriate time I will endeavour to do it.

To answer an earlier question: he asked who was conducting the feasibility study with the corporation having to do with the Y-lot building. The firm is Vladimir Plavsic Architects. The estimated cost is not to exceed $200,000.

Relative to the legislative building itself, as you know, we've had seven years and $12 million of restoration work going on in this building. A few days ago in these estimates I referred to the completion of this. There are 40-odd projects yet to be done, including a new minister's suite which will be at the front-right, exterior lighting, driveways, storage areas, washroom restoration, energy efficiency projects — insulation throughout — and a number of others. No new dining room is proposed in those projects.

MR. LEVI: I'll ask him this and I'll sit down. Could he spell the name of the Y-lot building, and could he tell us a little bit about it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Y lot. I guess that's the legal description of a city lot.

MR. LEVI: Is it used as a parking lot right now?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

MR. LEVI: I see.

I want to ask the minister another question. I've never quite understood how the government goes about naming buildings. Perhaps he could tell us. What are the considerations? Somewhere down the line, if we're not careful, we're going to have a Wolfe Building, or maybe we'll have a Strachan Building. We might even have a McClelland Building, and underneath it will say: "To the the memory of the heroin treatment program." But we won't go into that now; it's a different ministry. How do you go about naming a building? What happens" What considerations go into naming a building?

Let me make a point about this. I suppose one of the things that is worthwhile from a historical point of view is to give buildings names which people have some understanding of. Some of the buildings — for example, the courthouse building is referred to as the courthouse building — don't really have a name, and I suppose it wouldn't be too practical. But how do you go about naming buildings?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, it has been primarily through suggestions and considerations of the government, and others. A surprising number of suggestions are received. Generally speaking, you'll find the decision is based on historical reference to a person or place. I don't know what more I can say with regard to the process.

MR. LEVI: About two years ago the former Provincial Secretary had a report done on B.C. Buildings Corporation. If I remember rightly it was done by Coopers and Lybrand. At that time the person who assumed the job of Provincial Secretary — that is the immediate predecessor to the present minister, Mr. Curtis, the member for Saanich and the Islands — had some rather exotic things to say regarding his concerns about the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and he had a report done by Coopers and Lybrand. I've asked the minister on a couple of occasions if we could ever get this report tabled, particularly in view of the amount of time that has gone by. One of the things that we've never had an opportunity to really do.... The annual report of the B.C. Buildings Corporation is like all annual reports. They're not terribly informative beyond just how much money comes in and how much money is spent.

Can the minister release the Coopers and Lybrand report which dealt with the organization and operation of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, particularly in view of the time that has passed since the report has been completed? Then we can make a comparison between the operation as perceived by Coopers and Lybrand in their report and what is going on today. We're not completely clear on that, but hopefully we will have an opportunity to discuss the operation of B.C. Buildings Corporation with the president, if we're able to get him before the public accounts committee.

That's my direct question to the minister. Sufficient time has passed. A report was done by Coopers and Lybrand, looking at the operation. I think the minister should be prepared to table that report. We could have a retrospective view of what was taking place in the development of it. Does he have any objections to tabling the report for us so that we have an added amount of information on that operation, particularly the way that the organization was put together? This is the minister who has a lot to do with the paying for reports and inquiries that are done. He controls public money which is used to pay for hearings, inquiries and examinations.

I think we're maybe hitting a soft spot here. There's a scrum-half discussion going on on the other side of the House. This minister is being told. Is it advisable or not advisable? The scrum has broken up and they're ready to play again.

Are there any reasons why that report could not be given to the House now? When you had it previously you needed time to study it. It's been quite some time. Why should we not

[ Page 5350 ]

get it in order to be able to add to our knowledge of what is happening in terms of the development of BCBC? Sure, you look at reports sometimes to see whether they've tripped over, but there are other things. Not all reports are negative. Is there any reason why that report cannot be tabled?

HON. MR. WOLFE: If I understand which report the member is referring to, I've never received it. It was probably partially prepared on the instruction of my predecessor. I have not seen it or received it, but I'd undertake to procure it and see whether it's appropriate. If it deals with confidential personnel matters, that makes it a little bit awkward. I presume the member is primarily interested in the B.C. Buildings Corporation in this regard. I'll endeavour to explore that possibility.

MR. LEVI: Just to refresh the minister's memory unfortunately I don't have the file here with me — when his predecessor came in you may recall that it was a time when there was a lot of flak flying around from ministries about the excessive costs of rentals that they were having to pay. At that time the new Provincial Secretary said that the best thing for us to do was to take a look at it and bring in somebody from the outside. They did hire somebody. I asked that minister for the report at that time and he wasn't prepared to release it. Now the minister has indicated that he'll look for it. While he's looking for it, he might try and find the bill and see how much it cost. I don't think those people work cheap. I think we're probably looking at between $30,000 and $60,000 for a study of a corporation that was just getting off the ground.

When the government set up the Crown corporation reporting committee, these are the reasons it would have made a great deal of sense to put the B.C. Buildings Corporation on their schedule. The thing was just beginning. You could take a look at a new, evolving corporation; not like what we have to do at the moment. Those of us on the committee are trying to wrestle through the history of some Crown corporation that's 50 or 60 years old, as a private entity and then as a Crown corporation. It makes it extremely difficult to really get a hold on things. Any information that we can get on the B.C. Buildings Corporation....

The minister started out by being a little defensive about the B.C. Buildings Corporation. He shouldn't be. There are some problems with it and we haven't got them all ironed out, but there are some positive aspects to it too. I'm quite prepared to say that. I can't say as much about the B.C. Systems Corporation, but that's another vote. We're going to have that at another time.

He's indicated that he's prepared to look for the report. I'll write him a letter and give him the information I have, which might help him.

The Provincial Secretary's ministry is not the best one in the world to find reports; I can tell you that from experience. When the NDP government came in, the first report they looked for, as I recall, was the Carrothers report. The Carrothers report was on collective bargaining for public servants, which had been completed eight or nine years before. I was told by an official in the department I was heading that you can always get a report if you know the name of it. You can't just say that there was a report done but you can't remember the name. So I'll endeavour to give the minister the precise name. We finally found the Carrothers report on a bookshelf — squeezed between James H. Chase's novel and something else — in the house of a former Provincial Secretary. The question is to find the other thing, of course. There was a great deal of money expended on this report.

Perhaps the minister could tell us exactly what the plans are for the Glenshiel Hotel. Is anything happening. Is it a B.C. Buildings concern or somebody else's concern? You know about the Glenshiel Hotel — the one at the back of the buildings that had a very fascinating exhibit one day; the senior citizens of that hotel had a magnificent protest with the use of some sheets. Is it part of the B.C. Buildings Corporation or is it now clearly within the B.C. Housing Management Commission? If it is in the B.C. Buildings Corporation, what is actually happening?

HON. MR. WOLFE: To deal with that question first, it is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and the Ministry of Transportation. Rather than get involved in responding to that query, I think I should defer that question as to their... The Buildings Corporation, given any instructions to proceed, act as landlords. That's about the size of it.

I want to comment on your observations regarding the corporation and the concerns of ministries' reputations for overcharging, etc. We must remember that the whole objective of establishing this corporation with a market approach to the cost of real estate was to do just that — to make the ministries aware of the real cost, not just some imagined cost of the facilities they were using. Before this corporation was developed, Public Works simply wrote off the annual expenditures for maintenance and capital expenditure for buildings, and they were long gone and forgotten. So here we have a concept where ministries are finding the actual cost of space in its initial stages alarming. They don't like to see what the real costs are. Naturally this brings forward criticism of those charges. Is the corporation extravagant or is it efficient?

In the past two years the directors of that corporation have, at the direction of the government, tried to become more efficient. I want to mention three things. In their report on cost efficiencies for the fiscal year just completed, they succeeded in reflecting a reduction of 25 personnel positions, in addition to a reduction of 11 positions in the previous fiscal year — that's just one example. They've gone through a comprehensive energy conservation program, achieving a saving of an incremental $600,000 per year cost avoidance, resulting in a 5 percent energy consumption reduction in the fiscal year 1981-82 and representing an accumulated cost avoidance of $3.6 million over the three years.

Lastly, I want to mention the application of the new corporate space standards, which have been exhaustively developed. These standards for office size, equipment, etc., achieve cumulative savings to the corporation's clients and to the taxpayer. It is estimated to exceed $1 million each year simply by having a standard guideline for space requirements. It's amazing what a variety of opinions you'll get from a client about what they feel they want. One thing of interest in that regard is, I think, that Treasury Board has recently mandated the corporation to refund each year's profit from the corporation back to general revenue of the Crown. The only restriction is that they are not required to refund any amount which will reduce the debt equity ration below 80-20. That's the current understanding with the corporation. By way of dividend in the following year they have to return the entire profit from the previous year. You find that for the 1979 fiscal year they refunded $18.3 million to general revenues — that would appear in our accounts for

[ Page 5351 ]

1980. For the 1980 fiscal year of the corporation they are refunding $16 million. It should be known that aside from the charges for space occupancy, offsetting that are — under sundry revenues of the Crown, somewhere in your blue book — revenues which are expected from the corporation for the previous year's profit.

MR. LEVI: The minister has given us the rationale for the operation — the raison d'etre of the whole corporation. I think he was saying we're now going to have some reality financing regarding the buildings of the government. We want you to know what the real world is doing outside. That is what's actually happened. To some extent this is similar to the value-for-dollar of the former federal auditor-general. We want you to know exactly what's going on outside government, so we're going to look at the rates that you should be charged. It's not the kind of allocation that used to be made under the old Public Works department, where they took a budget, put in an aside which said "rentals, " and usually tried to stay within that.

Yesterday, when I was talking to the minister, I said one of the criticisms about the B.C. Buildings Corporation was that it had become a pace-setter in respect to rates of payment. It's all very well for the B.C. Buildings Corporation to start out by saying that you've really got to know what the real world is doing outside in terms of the costs of rentals and accommodation. Therefore they're going to take that and make it reflect on government departments. That, of course, was the first criticism you got from ministries. They would turn round and say: "My God, my rental bills have gone up 100 percent or 200 percent." That's in an endeavour to say to the ministries: "What we were charging you before didn't really reflect what the real world was doing outside."

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't charge them anything before.

MR. LEVI: This is the point I'm going to get at with the minister. Within the government system, whether it reflected it or not, the expenditure was small. There was a certain amount of write-off, which was a write-off outside too, but all of a sudden you have created a very large pool of capital in B.C. Buildings Corporation that started at around $70 million in 1978. The revenue is now up to $178 million. He said it himself just now. He said: "There now is an agreement from Treasury Board that providing the debt-equity ratio doesn't go below 80-20, that profit's got to come back to the government." What profit? You can sit there and jack up the rents as high as you want, knowing you're going to make a profit that's going to come back to the treasury. Then you're going to stand up and say: "We're pretty sharp." You overcharge, and then you get it back in the way of a transfer from the department. That's been one of the criticisms of the operation. Suddenly you've gone to what you call "the real world, " sometimes charging rents higher than what's outside so you can transfer back. Why? What does that demonstrate?

It only demonstrates that ministries have to allocate a much more inflated and undemonstrably.... It's not demonstrated at all that there's a rationale for what you've just said. That's been the criticism coming from deputy ministers: "Every time we look at our building costs they're up." They're up so that at the end of the year you can turn it into a profit-and-loss business and transfer it back to the treasury. That doesn't make any sense to me. Yet outside in the real world people are complaining that BCBC, which is going out and paying rentals on the basis of this formula, is becoming a pace-setter. I don't think the minister has completely grasped what it was he just said. They're in the profit-and-loss game. "Inflate the rents; we'll always get it back at the end anyway." That's not practical; that creates a problem.

The other day we dealt with the Ministry of Forests going from $3 million to $10 million. I don't care how much he's reorganized his department, there's no rationale for a $7 million increase to create six regional district offices, because if that's the case, you're really in trouble. I think the minister is completely wrong in what he's said. That's one of the reasons we need to have this corporation before either the Crown corporations reporting committee or Public Accounts, and I hope we can get one or the other.

But what the minister has said in no way makes me happy with what they're doing in creating what are, in fact, inflated rents. At the end of it all we're going to transfer the profit back. Well, we know that they've been transferring money back to the treasury. We also know that they've created, some debt: over $300 million already. This is one of those little Crown corporations that is building debt. This is from the government that says that we can't leave any debt for the next generation. They sure left $300 million to the next generation, and there's probably going to be more.

I don't accept the minister's argument about this reality financing. What has really happened, as an end product, is that ministries are simply paying what some have characterized as "outrageous" rentals, and they can't do a thing about it, because they're the only people they can go to. There's a monopoly if you ever want one. Sure, you did it under public works, but in those days the government wasn't quite as big as it is now. At the end of 1975 the government wasn't anywhere near as big as it is now. I can remember that all of them campaigned on making government smaller. It sure isn't smaller. There are 64,000 to 66,000 public servants in government itself and Crown corporations. That's 8,000 or 9,000 more than existed then. There are more buildings. It's an incredible size. On top of that, you somehow think that the only way to be practical is to have reality financing, which means that rents have gone up 200 to 300 percent. That doesn't make sense to me. You've simply inflated....

Just look at the basic figures: 1978, $70 million; 1981, you'll probably pull in about $180 million. That's very nice. It's an incredible increase. But does it really do what the minister says? No, it doesn't, because in the final analysis you get it at both ends. Whatever profits you've made because of inflated rents will go back to the government. Is that the name of the game? That's not the way you want to operate the government: overcharge people and then take it back into the treasury and say you've done pretty well. That makes no sense at all.

We haven't really got from the minister the complete rationale about this. We ran into the same problem of understanding completely in the Systems Corporation. They're both really service-giving operations. But in this one, if that's his explanation, then I think they've got themselves into a lot of trouble. Out there the real estate industry is saying: "You are pace-setters, and you're the people who said you would never get involved in the private sector." That's their major criticism.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave of the House for an introduction?

[ Page 5352 ]

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: It indeed makes me proud to introduce this group today. We have a group of students from Clearbrook Elementary School in my constituency. They are accompanied by their teachers: Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Gibbons and Mr. Janzen. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to these folks.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you will recall yesterday I was rather preoccupied with the whole electoral process in the province. I reported that by virtue of the fact that we have ignored some very important aspects of that process we have a number of people in our province who have somehow become disfranchised; in other words, they've gone without a vote.

A short time ago I discovered something that concerns me and that I think really deserves an answer from the minister with respect to our whole electoral process. I can understand where a minister or member or candidate would go to a friend and colleague to ask him to be his campaign manager — or her, as my two female colleagues remind me; I'm showing my chauvinism. However, I would wonder whether or not it could be accepted as reasonable behaviour for a minister of the Crown at the time to have as his returning officer the former president of Wolfe Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, whose name is Walter B. Ronald. I understand that he's still the returning officer in Vancouver–Little Mountain, the riding in which the minister runs and was the candidate, and was at that time the Minister of Finance.

MR. KEMPF: So what?

MR. COCKE: The member says: "So what?" Honestly! That was the member of Omineca saying: "So what?"

MR. KEMPF: That's right, and let it be read into the record.

MR. COCKE: It will be read into the record.

MR. KEMPF: Because you're a Social Crediter you're not honest — is that what you're saying?

MR. COCKE: Honestly! He doesn't understand basic morality — it must be seen to be morality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order.

MR. COCKE: The member for Omineca is a bit edgy, and I don't blame him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 164.

MR. COCKE: He gets twitchy, Mr. Chairman, when people reveal this kind of information.

Now I have before me a copy of notice of change of director for extraprovincial companies. It shows the existing directors and their positions, and it also shows one Walter B. Ronald as having ceased to be a director. I believe there is a typographical error here, because it says he ceased to be a director as of December 31, 1979. However this document was registered April 3, 1979, so that would hardly be compatible. I'm not sure how one could register a determination that a person will cease to be a director at a later time. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. The date of registration is a happy coincidence, because as I recall, April 3, 1979, was the very date that the election was called for May 10 of that same year.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is even still more strange when I discover that Walter B. Ronald doesn't live at 25th and Cambie, in Shaughnessy, or, in some area where he would probably be part of the Little Mountain scene. No, he lived at 4605 Brentlawn Drive in North Burnaby. So he lived in the riding of the member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm responsible for him.

MR. COCKE: I don't accept that you're responsible.

MRS. DAILLY: No, I certainly wouldn't be.

MR. COCKE: I don't accept that you're responsible at all, Madam Member.

As I suggest, I don't see anything wrong with a member going to an old friend, a business colleague, an employer or anybody else and soliciting their help in his or her campaign or, for that matter, to become the campaign manager. But, Mr. Chairman, to go to the president of your company, or even a recently retired president of your company, and ask him to be the returning officer — a job that requires total neutrality.... I'm not suggesting there was dishonesty in that campaign; I'm just suggesting that justice must be seen to be done. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this cannot be the case under these circumstances. I say there has been far too much of the old-boy network and far too much relying on friends from this government. Unless there is a very good answer to the question that I'm bringing up now, I charge that this is another dirty trick. This is a situation that demands an answer now. I'm going to just quickly review. The former president of Wolfe Chevrolet-Oldsmobile — a company with whom that minister has a great deal of contact, I might say, having been involved with it all of his working life — after retiring became the returning officer in the Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency.

MR. MACDONALD: Where the minister ran.

MR. COCKE: The happy coincidence is that the date of the call of that election, April 3, 1979, is the very date that there was a registration form sent to the company's office stating that Walter B. Ronald had ceased being a director as of, it says here, December 31, 1979. I suggest that that is likely a typographical error, unless it was announcing when he was going to be dropped from the board of directors. This is really sad. I think that we have established a situation that demands that we look very carefully across the province at every appointee as a returning officer and every appointee as an official in that whole elections office.

Last year we put before this House a resolution that was accepted by the government. That resolution called for a committee on fair election practices. That committee was never even convened, to my recollection. It was accepted by the government by virtue of the fact that there had been prior gerrymandering, etc. They were embarrassed at that time to the extent that they accepted this committee as being a standing committee in this House for that year.

[ Page 5353 ]

MS. BROWN: In that minister's riding.

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's very interesting. The gerrymander did occur to a large extent in the minister's riding — and elsewhere.

MS. BROWN: Strange things happen in that riding.

MR. COCKE: Strange boundaries. But, Mr. Chairman, that committee did not meet. We asked for that committee again this year, hoping that this time it would meet. But no, it did not meet.

Further to that — and why I call for a good look at every appointee and his or her relationships with the present government and the present members — is the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) saying in response to my statement here: "What's wrong with that?" Now, on his way out of the House, he pats the minister on the shoulder, suggesting: "I'm with you all the way."

MR. KEMPF: That's ridiculous.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Member, you're with him all the way to infamy.

Mr. Chairman, it's clear.

MS. BROWN: No, it's not. Tell us again.

MR. COCKE: If my colleagues haven't heard, let me go over it just once more.

MS. BROWN: Very slowly.

MR. COCKE: Walter B. Ronald — R-o-n-a-l-d — was president and general manager of Wolfe Chevrolet-Oldsmobile in Vancouver.

MR. BARNES: Who was Wolfe?

MR. COCKE: W-o-l-f-e — Olds, Chev. The company has a great deal to do with the present minister under questioning. On April 5, 1979, Mr. Walter B. Ronald was appointed returning officer for the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding!

MR. COCKE: I'm not kidding.

MS. BROWN: Who runs in that constituency?

MR. COCKE: The Provincial Secretary runs in that riding.

A returning officer is that person charged with the responsibility of conducting a fair election in that constituency. They date he was appointed was April 5. The date the election was called was April 3. A happy coincidence occurred on April 3. The provincial companies branch were notified that Walter B. Ronald ceased that day to be a director of Wolfe Chevrolet-Oldsmobile. I think there's a typographical error in this directive. It states that he ceased to be a director as of December 31, 1979. That would be much later. I don't think that this is an announcement of what would be happening at the end of that year, but it's possible.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In any event, the president of Wolfe Chevrolet-Oldsmobile — who, incidentally, lived at 4605 Brentlawn Drive in North Burnaby, the member for Burnaby North's (Mrs. Dailly's) riding — didn't even live in Little Mountain. He had to commute back and forth during that election. By the way, he is still the returning officer and has not been rescinded to this day. Therefore I gather he will be called upon in the next election to conduct a fair election in that same constituency. Mr. Chairman, I'm asking that we have an investigation into each and every appointee as returning officer in each and every constituency in this province.

I suggested this last year, this year; every other year we're going to be calling for a committee on fair election practices. That resolution was accepted by the government last year. Yet they did not convene the committee nor did that committee that should have been convened ever meet to hear any kind of evidence with respect to fair election practices.

Mr. Chairman, unless there is an answer to this question, we feel that there has been a major abuse of office.

MS. BROWN: She tampers with the boundaries, and you tamper with the returning officers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I didn't quite hear the member's remark, but I must caution hon. members about improper accusations toward members in the House, whether it be during their speeches or when they are sitting in the House.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, when you've been here as lone as I've been and have heard as many accusations about innocent citizens and the allegations that surround them, you almost get immune to it.

MR. COCKE: The accusations are against you.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I presume I can be heard in defending a responsible citizen of British Columbia. I challenge this member who just spoke to go out into the hall and make whatever accusations he has made here with regard to what he is alleging that Mr. Walter Ronald might have done that was illegal or improper. Inside these chambers he can malign........

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, it is the right of each member to be heard in this assembly, particularly when a discussion of this importance has been initiated. The minister should also be heard in reply. All members should afford each member an opportunity to be heard in this House without interruption.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've heard of a lot of shameful things which have been done in this House, but this is one of the worst. It rates right down low on the scale of things. I'm going to let it stand on its merits, Mr. Chairman, because I think the people of this province are quite accustomed to accusations of this kind from that party. They haven't changed their style. They haven't changed it one bit. They've got a new leader who wears a blue, pin-striped suit and goes around looking like a banker. So they're going to be this new,

[ Page 5354 ]

responsible, middle of the road party; they're no longer the former NDP. Mr. Chairman, they are the same old NDP.

Let's deal with what the member said. He comes in here cold turkey and levels off at an individual who accepted a job as returning officer. To fulfill a difficult job we're always for people who are competent and responsible and can organize people. To be a returning officer is a most difficult assignment. I suggest that Mr. Ronald fulfils that capacity.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I guess the truth kind of hurts, doesn't it? They can't accept the truth of the matter. As I say, I challenge the member to go out to the hall and indicate what may be improper or illegal about this.

I want to make one thing clear: Mr. Ronald, in fact, resigned as president, general manager and a director of the corporation he is referring to on December 31, 1978. Perhaps the member has been misled in his understanding of that question, but he did resign as president, general manager and director. He performed a reliable service for that company for many years, and I think it's unfortunate to try to malign him here in this House. The member is referring to his association with Wolfe Chevrolet-Oldsmobile. This member is not associated with that company and hasn't been since I have been a minister. The member laughs. A minister is required to make a considerable commitment in this regard. I have not been an officer of that company ever since I took this position as a minister.

I want to make one other thing very clear. He refers to an appointment in April 1979, I believe. At that time I was not holding this portfolio; I was in another portfolio. Therefore I was not responsible for the Provincial Elections Act at that time. I became Provincial Secretary in November 1979. He also referred to the fact as though it was a great wrongdoing that Mr. Ronald lives in Burnaby. He has lived there for most of his years. If you study the act you'll see that there is nothing improper about that under the act. A great many returning officers do not live in a specific riding, in the same way that candidates are not required to live in a particular riding. Some of you don't live in your own ridings.

They talk about this applying to former allegations of dirty tricks and all the rest of it. As you know, a returning officer has nothing to do with electoral boundaries or these matters. It's a tough job to do. You have to hire a lot of people in a very short period of time. You've got to be capable, and this gentleman certainly fulfils that capacity.

If you want to make the allegation that he's a friend of mine, I say that I have known him, but you have lots of associates who you have appointed to jobs that you know require some special expertise.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: My friend, it has nothing to do with changing boundaries or anything of this kind, as you well know. I think what you are attempting to do here is the trap you always fall into. You cannot resist the temptation to malign somebody in an attempt to throw some cloud over this government. Just keep at it, because the next election will tell that people realize you follow that format and have for years and years. You haven't changed. You're up to the same old business that you always have been. You can't resist throwing sonic mud at innocent individuals.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I'm quite prepared to go in the hall and say anything that I've said. That minister arguing that this is throwing dirt around is absolutely ridiculous. I'm charging him as being responsible for appointing a very close business associate as his returning officer. I said that I had no idea whether or not anything occurred during that election that was untoward. But I do know this: where I'm a candidate and I have a returning officer, that returning officer must decide whether a ballot is valid. He must decide whether or not they are in my favour. If there is a very close personal relationship, it's a natural human tendency to be a little more partial to one than the other. I feel insulted by that minister when he says that it's the old mudslinging game. If you don't walk in mud, then nobody can sling it at you.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

MR. COCKE: You see, Mr. Chairman, that's the problem. The minister says that I should be ashamed of myself. I did not appoint a friend as a returning officer in New Westminster when we were government.

That's the problem. It's just a question of seeing to it that their own perception of morality is such that everything is above-board and appears to be above-board. I rest my case.

I think that the minister attacked me for having the audacity to come into this House and state as follows: The former president of Wolfe Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Walter B. Ronald, whose directive — that is, the directive around his being removed from the board of directors at Wolfe Chevrolet-Oldsmobile — came to the attention of the companies branch and is filed and registered, dated April 3, 1979. It states on this official form that he was retiring December 31, 1979. I suggested at that time that that was likely a typographical error. The minister said it was December 31, 1978. That's fair enough. The registration, however, was April 3, 1979, and that was the date the election was called. I didn't say there was anything wrong with Mr. Ronald, but it's a very strange circumstance that he became the minister's own returning officer. If he's so competent, why didn't you send him to New Westminster, Burnaby, Langley or Dewdney? Why was he in the minister's own riding? Because there is a potential there of partiality. That's all I'm saying.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think that about all I intend to say on this subject has already been said. I'll only say that I mentioned earlier that as a returning officer he has no jurisdiction over boundaries and so on. We want to make one thing clear. You alleged, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member, that a returning officer can influence a valid vote from a non-valid vote and so on. There are adequate safeguards. We all know this through scrutineers and the many eyes that are watching these always questionable ballots that are reviewed after. They're scrutinized by many people, not just one. To suggest that a returning officer can make a decision on what is an appropriate vote or not is really stretching the imagination.

One further thing that I'd like to make clear is that Mr. Ronald, although he was a returning officer, I believe, in the 1979 provincial election, is not currently planning to be a returning officer again. He has resigned.

[ Page 5355 ]

MR. KING: I think the unfortunate thing here this morning is the fact that the Provincial Secretary fails to recognize an issue of political fair play and morality. Instead, he gets up and tries to divert the issue by suggesting that my colleague from New Westminster is attacking Mr. Ronald's integrity. He knows that is not the case. He is apparently attempting to totally distort the thrust of the argument here. The thrust of the argument is that people who hold sensitive positions, particularly with respect to the Election Act, should be impartial people.

HON. MR. WOLFE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance on this matter. The member is making suggestions that the member who raised this question, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), indicated that there was no allegation here against Mr. Ronald, but against the minister.

MR. COCKE: I made a very safe statement that the minister should be able to understand. I said the potential is there for favouritism, and I also went on to point out that justice not only must be done but must be seen to be done. I said they made a terrible error; nothing more, nothing less.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the points of order, I think all members understand that no imputation of wrongdoing can be made against another hon. member in this House. With those particular guidelines I suggest we carry on with debate.

MR. KING: I don't know who counselled the Provincial Secretary on his point of order, but he even fouled that one up, didn't he?

The point is that my colleague did not make any allegations of wrongdoing, breaching the law or anything else against Mr. Ronald; he simply pointed out that an impartial person has traditionally and historically been appointed to preside over an election contest. It's a contest of competing forces, and in any such position in a crucial matter like that the need for impartiality is self-evident. If the Provincial Secretary doesn't recognize that, then we're all in trouble in terms of hoping for any fairness and equity in elections in this province.

The scandalous thing is that he doesn't understand the morality of it, and then he has the gall to get up and talk about mudslinging on this side of the House. Poor little government; poor little Provincial Secretary! It is that government which has wallowed in dirty tricks. That is the government that has been caught out by their own shenanigans, without the spotlight of public attention on them, then been found out by the press and the media and fired all their own research staff when they were found out. They fired them all on Christmas Eve rather than taking the political responsibility for the direction of that research staff. For that minister to get up and talk about political morality or mudslinging is just a bit too much.

If you want to be Mr. Clean, then I suggest that you be seen to be impartial and fair, not appoint business associates who don't even reside in the riding to preside over the election contest. It's true that some members of the Legislature don't live in their own ridings, but they are directly responsible to the electors through elections. The returning officer is a government appointment and not responsible to the people in the same way a politician is.

What distortion! I submit it's a cowardly defence to try to divert the responsibility to Mr. Ronald. The responsibility is the government's, and the Provincial Secretary happens to hold the office of the government representative responsible for presiding over the Election Act. He didn't touch the boundaries, he said. He wasn't responsible for altering the boundaries. He didn't need to; their friend Eckardt had already done a job on that.

No one knows better than this member the job that Larry Eckardt did. My riding was abolished. I would like to take any one of the Social Credit members of government today and trot them around the riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke with me and say: "This is the political job Larry Eckardt did for the government." I would challenge any one of you to have the stamina to cover and adequately service that huge geographic area that you've assigned to one member, for political reasons.

Larry Eckardt was a former Social Credit candidate. I suppose the Provincial Secretary sees nothing untoward about appointing that kind of partisan person to redrafting the electoral boundaries either.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He's also a judge.

MR. KING: He was not a judge when he was appointed, but he was a Social Credit candidate on two previous occasions. Wasn't it unusual that he abolished three New Democrat ridings?

Mr. Chairman, here's the sorry part. They can't understand the need for morality and fair play in government. You try to defend it when in fact there is no defence. That's why the Socred image is in trouble. They accuse us of mudslinging because their conduct is brought to public attention. It's just a bit much. It is not we who are going out and hiring Hollywood image-makers to try to repair that tarnished image. I say come clean. Act fairly. Act with equity, dignity and integrity and you won't need to hire movie-makers at the public expense to try to repair your sorry image. That won't be necessary.

He says the gentleman had resigned from Wolfe Chevrolet-Olds, but on the face of it there is a long-standing business and friendship relationship. To suggest that a friend who is presiding over a contest — and the election is a contest — between that member and his colleague and other political candidates has no bearing on the matter whatsoever is so naive and stupid that it's appalling.

He says, well, he didn't touch the electoral boundaries; that was already done. We know that. It was done in the traditional Social Credit partisan style. The returning officer not only presides over whether or not a ballot is valid; he also presides over the conduct of the people in attendance on voting day. We've had examples in the past of some pretty high-handed, roughshod tactics by members of that party on election day which in my view should not have been tolerated. There's the whole question of whether advertising comes into the polls on election day. Is a person who is closely associated with the Social Credit minister who appointed him — his friend, his former business partner — going to lay down the hammer in equal terms to make sure that the Socred scrutineers are indeed couriers or voters, and observe the rules very carefully and make sure they don't bring propaganda in an attempt to influence other people coming in in the fashion he would with other candidates?

[ Page 5356 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is yes. You don't know Walter Ronald.

MR. KING: Well, frankly I'd feel a lot better if the person appointed were an impartial person from the community, without that background of friendship and without that background of business relationship with the minister.

What the minister is saying is that we have to trust them. Their motives are all pure; these people are of such high integrity that the question of partiality shouldn't even be considered. That's an insult. That's the minister's defence.

One of the basic precepts of law is, as my colleague quoted, that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Certainly if that precept is applicable to the courts of this land — which are seen to be impartial, are generally accepted as impartial and have a pretty good reputation in terms of the dispassionate dispensation of justice in the province — and is accepted by them as a part of the very foundation, why does the minister turn down the same concept in his high office? It's okay for the courts but it's not necessary for Social Credit. Are you a little bit cleaner than the courts? Well, the record doesn't indicate that. For the minister to get up and cry "foul" and say "mudslinging" is a pale, shallow and rather cowardly defence, in my opinion. They have brought everything on their own heads through the kind of seedy conduct that's been outlined here this morning, which he sees nothing wrong with. It's no wonder there's no confidence in this government. It's no wonder they don't recognize the proprieties of office, when they don't even understand the basic prerequisites of fair play. I say shame on the Provincial Secretary. Shame on him.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Wolfe Chevrolet company is the family company of the minister. In April 1979 the minister was not in charge of the Election Act of the province of British Columbia, but he is today. He should be setting a higher standard that people could have confidence in. In April 1979 he was a member of the cabinet, which unquestionably can and does appoint and select returning officers. The suggestion that the Wolfe Chevrolet company is one from which the minister has severed his connection is something that comes up in politics very often — put it into a blind trust. It's very hard for me to accept when your family are actively managing — and I think managing well — that particular company. I never have accepted this blind trust. It's useless. It's like a seeing-eye dog; it's about that blind for the person concerned.

Mr. Ronald must have had relations with the family company of the minister at that time. I would assume that he was on pension. I don't know whether the pension had been fully determined or not. The minister says that he had recently resigned on December 31, 1978, but if he had at that time, he should have filed the notice of resignation with the office of registrar of companies, not when the election was called and it began to look sensitive. Was it a payoff in terms of a government job for Mr. Ronald instead of him getting the gold watch from the Wolfe Chevrolet company? That particular job, of all jobs — to be returning officer in the very riding where the minister is running — is a matter of public morality.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who had good reason for being familiar with the work of Larry Eckardt, has pointed out that the court says that the rule of justice must not only be done but it.... At first they said"seen to be done, " and then it was amended in the case of the Sussex justices to "seem to be done." That isn't just a matter of appearance, Mr. Chairman. That rule has evolved over many centuries through the courts of the land, because sometimes there is skulduggery that can't be proved. I'm not saying that it applies in this case, but I'm saying that is the rule and that is why the rule exists. If it didn't exist, there would be things going on that could never brought into the light of day — and the courts know that. Now a returning officer is a position of trust. It's almost a quasi judicial privilege, a quasi judicial job. I think, for example, the returning officer can cast a final vote between parties in the event of a tie. You know, that little thing tells you at once that this is a position that must be impartial and must be seen to be impartial by the electors of the province.

If democracy is to survive, people have to have confidence in the system. But here we have a Provincial Secretary, who is in charge of the election machinery of British Columbia, not saying, "This was a mistake," but defending this kind of gross public immorality. How would you feel if these facts that are brought out by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) had been known, and you were an opposition candidate in that particular riding? As you went around and tried to work in that riding and do the best you could with your campaign, this question would always be in the back of your mind: why was this late appointment of a returning officer made who is a close business associate of the minister's family company? Why was he brought into the particular riding where the minister was running? You would say to yourself: "There is something very wrong. I can't put my finger on just what it is that's happening here, but it's very wrong."

Everybody knows it's wrong, and yet you have a Provincial Secretary who today, in 1981, gets up and defends the practice and accuses people who bring this principle to the attention of the public of being mudslingers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Exactly.

MR. MACDONALD: That has been the line. That's fine. You go ahead with that line. But, Mr. Minister, you will not intimidate us from bringing questions of your public morality to the attention of the people of B.C. — not one bit — with that kind of a rejoinder. I've seen quite a few governments — although they've been mostly Social Credit in my period, I remember some of the earlier ones — but I've never seen a government that has acted this way in terms of public morality. I hope we'll never see it again in the province of British Columbia. I think the government is on the way to the dustbin of history, and that's where it belongs. But we cannot be intimidated by these things.

The member for New Westminster has brought up a question as to whether people are entitled to have a good feeling about their electoral system in a democracy. Are they going to feel confident that there is no partiality in the election machinery? This is just dismissed by the minister as mudslinging. You know, the depth into which that government has sunk! They can't recognize that there is a principle involved here and they have no appreciation of it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You have no principles.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that may be. You know, that's your opinion, Mr. Minister, and I'm not asking the

[ Page 5357 ]

Chair to have you withdraw. I just say that I'm not going to be intimidated by that kind of a remark, and who will judge whether I have principles or not is not for me or for you to say. They'll let other people judge that if they want to do so.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you want me to shut up?

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to assure you that you're missing a point of political morality here.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't think I am.

MR. MACDONALD: You've appointed to a job that should be impartial — like a judge, within that sphere.... You've appointed your own close business associate in your own riding. You see nothing wrong with that. That puts us kind of in despair as to what kind of election machinery we have in this province and whether people can feel confident in it.

I support entirely what the member for New Westminster and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke have said. If we have the kind of government we have that accepts this kind of principle, then the province of British Columbia is in trouble indeed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the next speaker it is incumbent on the Chair to point out to hon. members that we are currently discussing the administrative responsibility of the Provincial Secretary under vote 164. Only actions for which that minister is responsible can be discussed. The Chair has permitted what can best be described as wide latitude in discussions of other related matters under the Provincial Secretary's general office going back prior to the time that the current minister held the office. The discussions under that particular vote must be limited to the term that the minister before us has been in office. I would ask all members to bear that in mind and, at the same time, to reflect upon the manner of canvassing matters and trying to relate matters previous to that particular time to this current debate. I would commend that to all members and ask for their cooperation in continuing the debate.

MR. BRUMMET: It may be somewhat difficult to deal specifically with the item in the estimates, because I was planning to respond to some of the allegations that have been made. However, I will try and relate it, because the Provincial Secretary has been accused of gross public immorality. I take it that conclusion has been reached by the opposition from the observation that it is wrong to appoint anyone that he has ever known. That is certainly the implication and the allegation. It can be worked around any way that we like by careful selection of words.

They say we are not casting any aspersions upon the people appointed, yet the implications of unfairness and partiality are levelled at these appointments. The suggestion is that anyone who has ever had a personal association with any minister or a political association with the Social Credit Party should therefore be disqualified from appointment to any office. The implication and the allegation are that anyone who has ever been associated politically or personally with any Social Credit member is incapable of impartiality. I certainly cannot accept that.

In my own riding in North Peace River there are many people I know well who would be eminently qualified for various appointments. I would not hesitate to recommend them for some very important appointments if such came up. Because of their qualities, I would not want them eliminated or maligned by members on the opposite side, simply because I knew them or was personally or professionally associated with them. When we get statements that any of these appointments are gross public immorality, I cannot accept that. I know of several judges in this province who have strong past political affiliations. I would certainly never suggest that these people are incapable of impartiality. I'd like to make that point to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. LEGGATT: The member who just spoke and the Provincial Secretary continue to miss the key point in the debate.

I want now to direct some specific questions to the Provincial Secretary — I hope I have his attention — not on the specific matter of this particular appointment, but on the general principle itself. This is a matter that has come up before. What we're dealing with and pleading for is that there be some amendments to the Election Act. We can't allow this act to sit the way it is. It is clearly an act capable of being used by any government in power to appoint their friends to these positions. That would be true of any particular government in power. We're saying have a look at the act. Let's get an independent agency to make these appointments, so we don't have this kind of thing going on. It’s no service at all to this House for the Provincial Secretary to get up and suggest that this is somehow another case of mud-slinging.

MR. BRUMMET: Well, that's what it is.

MR. LEGGATT: That is absolute nonsense. If you're ever going to have any constructive debate in the House, you'd better look at the principles of the argument. Don't sit in your chair and then get up with these weak defences: "Oh, I couldn't possibly ever appoint anyone I ever knew to this." That's absolutely silly and simplistic. We're saying examine the provisions of the Election Act and see whether they're right.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: If this member will close his mouth and open his ears, he might learn something in this place.

The principle is simply that the election machinery is too closely in the grip of the party in power and the Provincial Secretary. We're saying we need an independent agency — the judiciary would probably be an appropriate body, but it doesn't have to be the judiciary — where the appointments of returning officers are made, so that we can end this kind of debate in the House and get on to something more constructive — which I'm sure my friend would love to do, but he sits here screaming names across the floor. You're here, Mr. Member, to do something constructive in this place.

It seems to me a reasonable suggestion that the Election Act be reviewed, that the concept of an independent agency for these kinds of appointments be seriously considered and that proper amendments be brought forward in this section to, at last, clean up the Election Act. That's really what the debate is about. It's time the minister understood that that is the principle involved. It seems to me that a reasonable, constructive suggestion is being made by the opposition. I hope the minister will respond to it and give us some indica-

[ Page 5358 ]

tion whether he is reviewing the obvious problems of justice under the Election Act, and whether the people of British Columbia can have some hope that in future there will be an independence in these kinds of appointments so that they're not just political appointments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would again remind members that the guiding principle we have in committee is that the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

MR. MITCHELL: What I would like to discuss follows right in line with what was just mentioned. That is the whole concept of our Election Act and how it affects the general public. I feel that we in the opposition have a duty to make many recommendations. We have to make these recommendations based on the experience that we have had in our own ridings. I would like to go back to the last election. It brings up the problems that have arisen from 25 or 30 years' use of an Election Act that has not been upgraded. It has not been fine-tuned, as you would say of agricultural land. It hasn't been brought up to the practices that have evolved in other election acts, both federal and municipal.

In my own riding in the last election over 700 voters voted under section 80. Over 700 people thought they were on the voters' list, took an oath, signed a declaration, received a ballot, marked that ballot and put it into an envelope. When we got down to the second count, the counting of the absentee ballots and all the various ballots under section 80, we threw out over 700. Maybe 700 people in a community of 32,000 is not great, and in this particular case it did not affect the election, but in many elections 700 votes can affect who is going to represent that riding and who is not. For the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) one vote made a big difference.

I feel we should be prepared to look at the Election Act, how it affects the general population and what has evolved over the years from other election acts, such as the federal act. I believe our present Election Act does allow us to have a permanent returning officer appointed. I feel the government should give serious consideration to appointing somebody in every riding who at least appears to be a responsible person, a person who has two or three years to make preparations between elections.

MR. BRUMMET: You think that if he's appointed by a Socred he can't possibly be responsible.

MR. MITCHELL: I didn't say that. Mr. Chairman, will you tell the member, if he wants to speak, to get up on his own time, but not to misinterpret something I said. I never said anything about it being a Socred.

I say the government should appoint some senior-type civil servant who has got credibility in the community and is considered to be fair and open-minded, and that he be given some time to make preparations and check that particular riding, view his riding, check the areas and set up the polls in the various rural communities that have grown and are still living under one poll. He should not be appointed two or three days after the election has been called. Not only that, but if they have two or three years' lead time they can appoint proper enumerators and they can adopt a policy of continually upgrading a permanent voters' list. I think we should adopt some of the policies that have been adopted in the federal election act — that there be two enumerators and that they be appointed by the candidates who ran first and second in the previous election or that they be appointed from some of the major political parties, so that the people who are doing the enumerating, working within the Election Act with a permanent returning officer, have a chance to build up a proper, permanent voters' list that will be able to go into action any time an election is called.

In an area like my own, which is growing day by day, and in other communities where there is a large turnover of transient workers, to set a seven-day limit to get on the voters' list denies many people of this country their basic right, and that is the right to cast a ballot.

There's another section in the Municipal Act. Under the Municipal Act and the federal election act a voter in a rural area can go into the poll, and if he has been left off the voters' list and if he has proper identification, two voters from his own community can swear him in. In a municipal election you can fill out a form which becomes part of your permanent record — your voting card — and that card is on file for the next election. You can vote at that election and it's permanently on file. Under the federal election act, in rural areas you can swear in and cast a ballot in that particular election. Because the federal election system does not have a permanent voters' list and permanent cards, there is a new enumeration at each election.

I feel that we should be looking at this Election Act and the way it's been in operation. We should sit down with a full committee to study the recommendations that we, as MLAs, have from our experience in our ridings. We in our political parties have mistakes that we have watched develop over the years. We do not want to see the democratic process be tainted by political patronage. We don't want to have the feeling out there that unless you are a part of the political machine you are not going to have full input into the machinery that enables each one of us to be elected.

If we're going to take a positive step and look ahead, we should take it out of the political end. When you have redistribution and you appoint some political person, it doesn't matter who that person is; that person is going to be judged as favouring the government in power. I feel that we should not look at an individual who we should appoint. We should look at an office. The committee that reviews the Elections Act and brings in recommendations for changes to the Elections Act should not be picked out as individuals but should be picked out as representatives of various offices. As a suggestion I believe that the provincial registrar of voters, no matter who he is, should be a part of that permanent committee. He should be on that committee, not because of a certain name but because of his position.

I feel that for someone of stature in a community, we could have the president or the dean of the University of British Columbia — not as an individual but for his position. No matter who he is, his position will be a part of that committee. As the personnel changes in the university, then the personnel changes on the committee.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As this is a provincial election, I feel that we should have one federally appointed judge — not as an individual, but we should have a person appointed because of his position. We should have a person who has some legal knowledge and commitment to make sure that not only does the law appear to

[ Page 5359 ]

be fair, but that it is fair. If we are going to set it up and give some positive direction, We should be looking beyond individuals and political groups to get the best of our community, to exploit their abilities.

As we go through our Election Act there are many changes we should look at and ask what we are trying to do. When a person goes to vote, he has one idea: he is out there to elect the representative of his choice. What particular difference does it make if he puts an X, an 0 or a check? As long as we can get the voter's intent, this is how it should be counted. When you get down to an election that is close, then we have the problem that arose earlier. If the appointed returning officer is a personal friend of the candidate in that riding, he is going to view the way the ballot is marked and he is going to find every little technicality so that maybe he can throw it out. It is not the way it's marked, but the intent of the voter.

I know that in the history of politics there were times when people were paid off with liquor, jobs and protection for marking their ballots. I know that in the history of the democratic process there was a time when we really needed that ballot to be marked so that it could not be identified. But I don't think a person who puts a check or a line can be any more positively identified than a person who puts a cross. If you want to put a cross that can be identified, I'm quite sure that can easily be done. I believe that if people want to corrupt the Election Act, there are other ways it can be done. But when we set up an election we should be getting the maximum number of people out to vote. We should ensure that they are citizens of that area and that they can be vouched for by a neighbour if they are missing from the voter's list, and the intent of the way they mark the ballot should be considered.

I give these recommendations to the minister, in all honesty and with a positive approach. We have an Election Act that has not been upgraded for 25 or more years. It has not been looked at or changed. We have stumbled along from election to election. I know from personal experience that people will swear that they voted in the last election — they marked a ballot and a returning officer put it in an envelope. You can tell them that they weren't on the voter's list and they say: "I voted. I know it went into an envelope." This is the policy. When a person does go in to vote, we could do it like they do it under the Municipal Act: if he's not on the voters' list, he fills out the form, it becomes part of the permanent voters' list and then he casts his ballot in the normal way.

I would like to go to another section of the minister's jurisdiction before I sit down. I'd like to discuss something which I guess you would want to call in broad terms the lotteries branch. In this particular case it is the problems that faced the Victoria Athletic Association in their quest for funds. It wasn't so much that they were requesting funds from the government, but it was their methods of raising funds. For the benefit of the minister, I would like to refresh his memory and go over the history of the Greater Victoria Athletic Association.

The Victoria Athletic Association were the forerunners of the London Boxing Club, which was a group in greater Victoria that sponsored many amateur sports. The London Boxing Club had certain problems. The reorganization of it set up the Victoria Athletic Association. This association consisted of coaches, trainers and officials from many sports such as hockey, football and lacrosse. Their main purpose in the community was to produce a team in each of the athletic ranks in the Victoria area — the peewee leagues, the juvenile leagues and the senior leagues. Each one of us who has been involved in sports knows that the cost of fielding a team and the cost of ice time, referees and uniforms is growing and growing. In many cases business people, because of their generosity, sponsor a team here and there. I know from experience that one of the worst things a business wants is a winning team, because that winning team goes on from the local league to the provincial league, and then to the national league. The cost can be enormous.

To get around that the Victoria Athletic Association got together as a group and sponsored a number of teams. They raised money very openly by having bingos. Everyone who attended a bingo knew that the money went to amateur sports. That's the crux of the problem. They were raising money for amateur sports. The regulations and permits under the Lottery Act, when making application to have a bingo, say that you can raise money for amateur sport. All the money is raised by volunteer labour, by people who are committed to sports organizations — the coaches, their wives, the trainers and the kids who are participating. They all worked to raise more than $82,000 last year. But last year, for some reason, the Victoria Athletic Association has fallen under the bureaucracy of the lotteries branch. From years of experience in the police field, I know there is a legal line. I know that there is a line which is right and which is maybe technically and legally wrong.

I think that it's the intent of the organization. This organization is not controlled by one or two people who are pocketing the money for their personal gain. They are not getting rich and taking trips. They are a community-based organization working to produce teams, athletes and a healthier British Columbian. Then what happens? What did the bureaucracy do? The bureaucracy said that the money raised by bingos must only be spent on minors and senior citizens.

I'll read from a letter from James Taylor, director of the B.C. lotteries branch. "The policy of approving only minors or senior citizens who are members of sporting clubs as recipients of charitable funds from licensed activities has been one of long standing. Your application and records clearly indicate you were aware of this requirement." What do they mean? There's nothing in the regulations or in the act that specifies that money raised from bingos should be spent solely on minors or on senior citizens.

Amateur sport is considered as one of the proper groups that can benefit from raising money by bingo. They're not coming to the lottery branch or to the government asking for grants or tax money. All they're asking is the opportunity to run an honest bingo game, to participate as a group of many sports fraternities and to raise money to sponsor teams who want to be active in the sports field. I believe that the ministry has a duty to make sure that the money raised and the methods used in raising it are proper, legal and above-board. I feel that the ministry has another obligation to demand that an account of all the funds raised be given.

I ask the minister to review the policy that is developing in the ministry. They've brought in a policy, and I don't know where it came from. I've tried to go through the regulations and the act, but there is nothing that says "minor." I don't know what their definition of "minor" is. They said it was anyone 19 and under. Now 19 is an adult under the liquor act; a minor is someone 18 and under. Under the Criminal Code an adult is anyone 17 and up. I imagine they will say a senior citizen is someone 65 and up.

[ Page 5360 ]

I feel this bureaucracy, this red tape, this fine line is hindering — and that's all I can say, Mr. Minister — a group of people in the community who are trying to raise money for sports. They are trying to take it off the backs of the business community; they are trying to have some input into what type of equipment their teams are given; they want to sponsor the best team and to have the best equipment. Many times a small business — no matter how charitable they are — will give a sweater with their name on the back, but in many contact sports you need good equipment. When they as a group go out of their way to raise money to get the best equipment, when they go to the local arenas to pay for ice time or to the municipal fields to pay for time on the sports field, they are carrying their own weight. They're getting — if you want to say — the satisfaction of knowing they're helping kids or fellow athletes.

As many of the committee have told me, there were coaches before them who helped to develop them as sportsmen either in hockey, football or in boxing. Now that many of these coaches, their wives and other active community minded people have got into the organization and are working to raise money, they feel they are participating in the community. I feel it's not right that the petty bureaucracy should be there to pick holes. I ask the minister if he will look at it, review it and help, not hinder, the groups. I would like an answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thank the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew for his question. I'm quite familiar with that situation with the Victoria Athletic Association. I met with their executive back in January, and in fact have the very review he is asking for underway to find a way around this problem with the ministry. As he says, it's a kind of hangup over the Lottery Act regulations. You have a peculiar situation here with a great many athletic organizations in Victoria functioning under one association which helps administer them. Their objectives are 100 percent wonderful.

As I say, I met with the executives. Briefly, the Lottery Act regulations, from my recollection, indicate that a certain percentage of their operation must go toward charitable undertakings. One of the definitions of a charitable organization or purpose is "community benefit," so the words "community benefit" are currently in the regulations in our provincial act. It's how you define "community benefit" as to whether all these sporting organizations satisfy that description or not. True enough, more recently the lotteries branch were attempting to cause the organization to spend some funds on charitable purposes, and it was a hangup over that definition that caused their licence not to be renewed.

I personally met with them and saw to it that the bingo licence they had was renewed for a year while a review took place. They hold a bingo in Victoria every week of the year to provide for their financial administration. But as we understand it, they're currently not spending funds on charitable purposes as the regulations would describe it. Once again we've renewed their licence for a year to remove their problem for the moment so they may operate in spite of the fact that they failed to donate the required amount to specifically charitable purposes in 1980, but one could argue whether they were or not. Secondly, I've instructed the staff to review the present regulations and guidelines with respect to charitable donations required of bingo and lottery licences. In reviewing these regulations and guidelines, the ministry has sought the advice of the Attorney-General's ministry because the Criminal Code of Canada and the lotteries act of British Columbia apply in the case of what is licensed gaming. So we're involved not only with the provincial act but with the Criminal Code of Canada. This is why we're not completely free to do as we wish. I'm expecting a report on this and have hopes of better defining this so this organization can carry on as they have in the past.

MR. MITCHELL: The regulations say: "For charitable organizations, education, community and amateur sport...." Amateur sport is defined in the regulations. It's part of the application that you make. It specifies amateur sport. It doesn't say "amateur sport, 19 and under" or "amateur sport, 65 and over." It says "amateur sport, " which is a broad group. I really appreciate that the minister is going to review it. I know that they did allow it to proceed.

Yesterday they received another letter. I take it that they're doing an internal audit and apparently there's $8,000 totalled up under miscellaneous. Now they want a detailed description of where the $8,000 is, which is not a problem. No one is complaining that it shouldn't be there. As an ex-policeman, I know that you must have inspectors continually monitoring groups. I also appreciate that we don't allow the community bingo groups to be taken over by organized professionals. I feel that we must have the local communities, local trainers, coaches and kids involved and active. This is the thing that I feel the ministry should give leadership in. We are afraid in the sports group that once you put down Victoria athletics, we'll move out to the western communities, and some of the legion groups that are raising money as community organizations for sports for the athletic promise of our community may be again like the domino effect.

I really ask the minister to look at it. Under the Election Act, look at the intent of what the group is doing. Monitor all the groups and keep a close check on them, but as long as that money is going into amateur sport, don't try and red-tape them to death.

Vote 164 approved.

On vote 165: administration, $5,193,418.

MRS. DAILLY: Under this vote I believe that there is an unnecessary increase in advertising and publications from $2,000 to $53,000. Travel expenses have almost doubled also. There is a major increase in office furniture. I move that vote 165 be reduced by $108,300.

Amendment negatived.

Vote 165 approved.

On vote 166: culture, heritage and recreation, $31,111,492.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to speak briefly. I want to try and put across to the minister that there are many people out in the public who have spent many years working for the arts in the province of British Columbia. I think the minister is well aware that a great number of these people have expressed to him and his ministry their concern over the proposed reorganization of the cultural services branch. I know the minister has received most of the correspondence that I have. I have met with some of these people who are concerned. I

[ Page 5361 ]

understand that the minister may be meeting with them, but after estimates. That's why I want to take this opportunity to say to the minister that I am concerned about what appear to me to be some unnecessary changes in the reorganization of this cultural services branch.

For example, it appears that grants to assist artists and art organizations throughout our province have received an increase of only 7.5 percent. I don't know how that kind of increase can possibly cope with inflation. Not only that, it's certainly not going to help the new, aspiring young artists in our province. We might be able to accept the 7.5 percent — but hardly — but then we see that at the same time the proposed new administration budget, because of this reorganization, shows a 200 percent increase in the expansion of the departments of culture, heritage and recreation.

Why the reorganization? Did you use your B.C. Arts Board as an advisory group before you reorganized? Can you allay the fears of the groups out there who are afraid that you are over-centralizing the arts in British Columbia, that the whole thing is going to become very bureaucratic, and that you're taking unto yourselves in this new organization a lot more bureaucrats? Is this really going to help the arts of B.C.? Is it not better to leave it coming up from the grassroots?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, the B.C. Arts Board was part of the recommendation and, sort of, the reorganization of the cultural services branch. There are what appear to be ten new positions, but, in fact, the real increase is only four newly established positions. Three positions were transferred from the Provincial Museum to the cultural services branch to consolidate that activity. Three positions were formerly auxiliary and are now being made permanent. So the real increase is four, more or less to service the new museums policy — we have a substantial increase in the granting policy there — and the increased needs of the cultural side of the branch.

I think you observed a modest increase in arts support. You must remember that the Cultural Fund is really the main source of grants for these organizations. The contribution from the Cultural Fund in the coming year is estimated to be some $5.8 million, compared to $4,241,000 in the year just concluded. A small amount of that money is through the vote, but the major amount is from the Cultural Fund itself.

MRS. DAILLY: I want the minister to reassure not just me — I represent concerns of people; they happen to be my own too. You are starting to duplicate services. You have the B.C. Touring Council, which has been doing a good job. You know that you've had letters from them saying: "What's going to happen to us?" Are they no longer going to get the same grants which they used to get? Will everything be decided from your department? Can you assure them that you're still going to use volunteers in the arts world? It's really rather ironic that this is the government that always said there should be more volunteer work and less paid work, yet you seem to be doing the reverse now. Can you assure groups such as the Touring Council and so on that they will still be in a position to make some of their own decisions and have grants.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is yes. I might supply the member with a copy of a letter recently written to the chairman of the B.C. Touring Council on April 23 which might assist the member.

Vote 166 approved.

On vote 167: government services, $16,503,048.

MRS. DAILLY: We realize that some of these government services are very worthwhile. But once again we have to say that we consider that there's an unnecessary expense involved in the increases; particularly in travel, which has almost doubled. Rentals have doubled. Therefore I move that vote 167 be reduced by $44,500.

Amendment negatived.

Vote 167 approved.

Vote 168: Transpo '86, $2,500,000 — approved.

On vote 169: British Columbia lottery branch, $10.

MR. KEMPF: I want not to belabour this point but to leave a thought with the minister for the coming weekend. We're just about ready to adjourn. I would ask at this time that further consideration be given by the minister to the question on which I spoke at length yesterday. I dealt with the application by the Fort Fraser home and school society to the Lottery Fund for a mere $12,000 for an adventure playground. I was pointing out yesterday the plight of these small communities, particularly in the northern part of this province, with no amenities or the wherewithal to provide their children with those amenities. I've had no answers from the minister. I thought it only right that I once again bring it to his mind to give him the weekend to think about it. Hopefully he'll come to me with those answers next week.

I pointed out at that time the large grants that are going to the lower mainland and the short end of the stick that the interior seems to be taking in regard to Lottery Fund grants. I bring to mind again the Corporation of the District of Burnaby, which got $280,000 of the Lottery Fund in the last quarterly report that I've seen. Again I bring to the mind of the minister that the bureaucratic guidelines laid down here in Victoria for moneys coming from that fund take no consideration of the interior of this province. I just want to leave those thoughts with the minister over the weekend and again impress upon him the need of the children of Fort Fraser for an adventure playground.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I've belaboured the point enough. I've made the point many times, but as we close for the week, I must stand once again and speak on behalf of my constituents, in this case constituents who can't even vote — the children of Fort Fraser.

MR. LEVI: It just occurred to me. I never thought that I'd be on the same side with that member there. However, I've got to add my voice to that, because in Fort Fraser I have three grandchildren, a son and a daughter-in-law. So I'm going to add my voice to that member's. He's loud, but he's not persistent enough. Mind you, I don't see anything lousy about $12,000. If you delouse it, it's still $12,000. He's quite right. When you visit up there, one becomes amazed at the difference in facilities between what children have in the south compared to what they have in the Fort Fraser area.

I have to advise my son, if I can get him to listen to me, how to vote. Really, Mr. Minister, you haven't offered one reasonable explanation as to why you can't break precedent

[ Page 5362 ]

on this thing. If you don't give him that money, he's liable to go and sit in the middle of the floor somewhere. Then you'll really be in trouble.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I can only say that I did make a comment, I thought, for the member yesterday. I think he will find if he contacts the municipality that there is correspondence waiting there in answer having to do with a matter that needs to be clarified. They need to establish a society. It's merely a technicality. If we can have a response on that matter, I think we can clear up the matter.

MR. KEMPF: In answer to the minister, I guess I didn't made it clear yesterday and I didn't make it clear this morning. They've already formed that society. That society is already in place. It's been in place for several months now. That was the recommendation by the people in your ministry, Mr. Minister. They went to that extent and now they're being offered a recreation facilities assistance grant. That's no good to that community. It's a small community. If they're given $4,000, which is fine, they couldn't do anything with it. Where would they get the other $8,000? They don't have the wherewithal in that community. They've already formed the society.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to support the member's position on that grant. I don't agree with my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who thinks that this member should be more persistent. I think he's been very persistent around this. I think it would be good that the House get on with other business and he be given the grant. It would also give him the opportunity to call a meeting of the Crown corporations committee and spend some time there, which is also one of the member's prime functions around here. Please, Mr. Provincial Secretary, let him have his money so the Crown corporations committee can start doing some business.

Vote 169 approved.

Vote 170: unemployment insurance and workers' compensation, $19,174,000 — approved.

Vote 171: Public Inquiries Act, $10 — approved.

Vote 172: provincial elections branch, $975,504 approved.

On vote 173: Government Employee Relations Bureau, $11,874,590.

MRS. DAILLY: This is a very interesting vote, because the heading is Government Employee Relations Bureau, and the total sum for this year is $11,874,590. We have some questions for the minister on this vote, particularly when you look at the description. In this vote is included "settlement payment, " and also the cost of all grievance arbitrations for public servants.

There are some very interesting things that come to mind with this vote. I don't think there's ever been a government that in so few years has eliminated so many top people from their public service. It's become almost ridiculous, the number of high civil servants in this province who have found themselves either fired or completely eliminated from their ministries. The latest one we hear about is Dr. Bonham in the Ministry of Health.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Just before we adjourn, hon. members, on Wednesday last the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) made a motion pursuant to standing order 35, which reads as follows: "That the House do now adjourn to debate the unanimous request of the Vancouver city council that the provincial government refund $12.1 million in excess school property tax revenues to city homeowners." In addition to the motion, the member submitted a written statement described as "a chronology of events." In my respectful opinion the matter does not qualify under the rules, for the following reasons:

First, the material submitted contains matters of argument.

Secondly, a request from a city council for a refund from the provincial government is not a matter which fits into the categories outlined in May's sixteenth edition commencing at page 368. I quote in particular the words of Mr. Speaker Peel appearing on page 369: "What I think was contemplated was the occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home, or foreign affairs, but I do not think it was contemplated that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion."

Thirdly, the matter complained of, on the member's own material, has been continuing since December 1, 1980, and the recent resolution of the Vancouver city council does not change the matter into a "recent occurrence" within the meaning of the rules so often stated in this House.

Finally, I would refer hon. members to the decision of this House on April 22, 1981, dealing with a similar application.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.