[ Page 8695 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Cutbacks in health care. Mr. Cocke –– 8695

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary estimates. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 8698

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Barber

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. King

Mr. Mitchell

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 67 –– 8719

Division

On the amendment to vote 68: Provincial Secretary and Government Services –– 8719

Division

On the amendment to vote 69: culture, heritage and recreation programs –– 8719

Division

On the amendment to vote 70: Public Service Commission –– 8720

Division

On the amendment to vote 71: Superannuation Commission –– 8720

Division

On the amendment to vote 72: Government Employee Relations Bureau –– 8720

Division

Ministerial statement re major grain terminal at Prince Rupert.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 8720

Mr. Lea –– 8721

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Agriculture and Food annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 8721

British Columbia Railway financial statement, January 1, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 8721

MONDAY, JULY 12, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. REE: In the gallery today we have the Henderson clan from the North Shore in Vancouver. I ask this House to welcome George and Constance Henderson, and their son George, commonly known as Bo, and his wife Joan Henderson. George and Constance are from West Vancouver. Bo and Joan Henderson are supporters of mine from North Vancouver–Capilano. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: The name of Hal Davis is well known to thousands of British Columbians, who over the years on a Sunday night will listen on CKNW to "Music for Sunday." Mr. Davis is in the member's gallery today in his new capacity as president of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters. With him are two members of his executive, Mr. Walter Gray and Mr. Don McIntosh, who are from Kelowna and have in common an outstanding MLA in this House. Would members join me in welcoming Messrs. Davis, Gray and MacIntosh.

MR. PASSARELL: Yesterday was a tremendous day: the Italians won the World Cup. Would the House give me leave on a motion that I have drawn up, seconded by the government House Leader: that this assembly extends its congratulations and best wishes to the Italian national soccer team for its thrilling World Cup victory, and extends best wishes to the Italian people everywhere. Congratulazione all squadra di calcio Italiana!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Bene! These excellent and highly conditioned athletes provided the whole world with the most exciting and superb performance. They're truly to be commended. I'm delighted to associate myself, and second the motion of the hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: On behalf of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and myself, we accept this motion for our constituents.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

CUTBACKS IN HEALTH CARE

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. On Friday, June 25, the minister issued a statement assuring cardiac patients needing emergency surgery that they will continue to receive appropriate care. Does the minister wish to amend his statement in view of the tragic death over the weekend of a Vancouver General Hospital patient awaiting a coronary bypass operation? He was to go to the General, but he was actually in Surrey Memorial. That's the statement I'm asking the minister if he cares to amend.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: We keep getting reassuring messages, but.... Dr. Peter Richardson said that a government funding cutback in health care, resulting in long waiting lists for surgery, accounted for the death of his patient. Has the minister now decided to review the funding cutbacks imposed by the government on the hospital system?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The specific case referred to by the member for New Westminster is one which staff within the ministry are investigating at my request. The staff is attempting to reach all persons involved, including the surgeons in the case and other officials at the various hospitals which may have been, or could have been, involved.

Ministry officials have not yet had the opportunity of speaking to all persons concerned. They have offered some medical information with respect to this case, and that information is being put together at the moment, along with additional information believed necessary to properly analyze the circumstances of this case. It's very difficult to respond quickly to a situation which is quite complicated. We expect to receive the information from all the doctors involved in this case, and additional information from the hospitals which were, or could have been, involved in this specific case. When that information is available, I'll share it with all concerned.

MR. COCKE: Much information is available to the minister....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: You're going to make me lose my temper.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Have you got any idea of the seriousness of what we're talking about in this House today?

Mr. Speaker, the chief of cardiac surgery at the Vancouver General Hospital, when he had his new unit put in, was reduced from 15 to 12 operations a week. That's 150 operations less per year. Has the minister decided to give us a statement other than the one that he gave us the other day reassuring us that all was well?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The question on cardiac surgery has been under consideration for a long time with the Ministry of Health, the cardiologists, and the administrators of the three hospitals who specialize in this treatment. The statement referred to by the member for New Westminster followed a meeting of cardiologists, and the administrator was in my office some weeks ago.

The Vancouver General Hospital is funded to perform 15 surgical procedures a week; the hospital itself has had difficulty in achieving that total for a number of reasons, some of which involved staffing. Statistics are being compiled with respect to the number of procedures which have occurred in the province over the past number of years with respect to the increase in the number of cases and surgical procedures performed, along with information relative to the waiting lists which are with us today in our province. Attempts have been made to coordinate through the three hospitals which perform the surgical procedures how they may be able to increase their numbers. In addition, the hospitals, cardiologists and others involved are attempting to determine how

[ Page 8696 ]

they can assemble the necessary teams required to perform a greater number of surgical procedures than they are physically capable of handling at this time.

MRS. WALLACE: And in the meantime people are dying.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The case is very serious, which is obvious to all. The member for Cowichan-Malahat says: "In the meantime people are dying." Mr. Speaker, I will not accept that type of statement from a person who has no knowledge of the case.

MR. BARRETT: Are you saying the doctors are lying?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I will not listen to the Leader of the Opposition, who may recommend that his members on that side make statements without checking into the information or background of the case.

MR. BARRETT: Are you saying the doctors are lying? Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition to come to order, and I'll ask the minister to conclude his response to the question.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in any individual case there is a tremendous amount of specific information that must be obtained in order to determine the facts of the matter.

MR. BARRETT: Are you saying the doctor is lying?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The people within the Ministry of Health accept their responsibilities most seriously and intend to investigate the circumstances of this case. We will not accept statements made without knowledge by members on the other side of the House. We expect to have additional information soon, when the responsible medical people are available to comment on the case. Following that, the information will be made available.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have just one other example. The director of cardiac surgery at Royal Jubilee — that's here — said that the expansion of the cardiac facility approved twice by the Health ministry had to be cancelled when the restraint program was announced. Has the minister decided as a result of that to give us something more than this reassuring statement?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, just a few weeks ago a meeting was held with the cardiologists and the administrators of the three hospitals in British Columbia where these operations are performed, in an attempt to determine how they could expand their program, thereby reducing the waiting lists. The cardiologists and the administrators at that time took it upon themselves to assist the ministry in supplying such information as may be necessary to accomplish this. That attempt to increase the number of surgical procedures, thereby reducing the waiting list for the patients, is underway. We hope we'll have information relative to the capability of these three institutions to increase their open-heart surgery capability.

One of the administrators, upon being asked when they could increase their capability by 25 percent, advised that it would probably be in a year's time, because of the difficulty of assembling the necessary surgical teams and technicians to assist in these operation procedures. So it's obviously something that is not changed overnight. Efforts have been made to try to resolve the problems which have been identified. With respect to this specific case, we're awaiting information.

MR. COCKE: Government cutbacks have also eliminated vital programs for disturbed adolescents in our province — for instance, the closure of the child and family unit of the Eric Martin Pavilion. Now we're told that the entire adolescent unit at the new Children's Hospital will be put on hold, resulting in the elimination of a very successful program for disturbed teenagers and some potential suicides. Has the minister decided to provide the Children's Hospital with the necessary funding to open the adolescent unit now, and not wait for the consultants' — Ernst & Whinney's — report on the hospital?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Regarding the Children's Hospital, which has just opened in the city of Vancouver, ministry officials have been discussing the matter of funding for the hospital for some time. It was agreed that an independent consultant would be utilized to try to determine the level of funding required for the first year of operation. The hospital is in a transition stage — moving from their old premises to the new — and new programs are being introduced while others are being modified. The question of the Children's Hospital is, I believe, in good hands at the moment, with the consultant and cooperation between the Children's Hospital and the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed that the member for New Westminster is now predicting children's suicides.

MR. COCKE: I am not going to deal with what the minister just said — that's totally irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, there are now fewer beds for sick children in this province than there were before the new Children's Hospital opened, thus placing sick children in B.C. at risk. We're replacing 240 beds with 189. It was supposed to go to 250 beds. What steps has the minister taken to restore the number of beds for pediatric care, at least to their original level?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the question of the funding and bed level at the Children's Hospital is the purpose of commissioning an independent consultant to review their needs.

The member for New Westminster again states that people are at risk, as he did with respect to the Mackenzie hospital, when he was proved to be completely incorrect in saying that the health of the community was at risk.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that members on that side are continuing to make wild statements without research. I trust that there will be no apology tomorrow.

[ Page 8697 ]

MR. COCKE: I'm not going to take that from that member for taking my responsibility seriously in this House. I'm going to ask him a question. When is he going to quit knuckling under to the Premier on this whole question and do something himself in terms of getting hospitals back on a...?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I heard part of the question that the member offered, Mr. Speaker. The member for New Westminster, who apparently believes that ill health and fear is good politics no matter what the age of the citizen may be, continues to, in my opinion, play games with the health of the people of this province for political reasons.

The budgets for the hospitals in the province of British Columbia this year are, as everyone knows, at a record high. The demand for health services in this province is also at a record high. A very serious attempt is being made by people in the medical and health professions to coordinate the resources available to the people of British Columbia for health care. They are generally doing an excellent job.

There will be occasions when situations with respect to health care will be brought to the attention of the public, and there will be interpretations placed on them, depending on your intent. The people of British Columbia have a high-level, quality health-care system. The people who are responsible for the delivery of health care in our province have the expertise, dedication and capability to deliver that.

There are situations which will occur because of the hundreds of thousands of people who come in contact with health service each day in our province. As they occur and are brought to our attention, they are investigated. I feel that it is a disservice to the people of the province to try to alarm them unnecessarily for whatever purpose.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the government House Leader. Especially in light of the revelation given during question period about the serious deteriorating state of health care in this province, has the minister decided to call Health estimates this afternoon?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to inform the hon. member that if he would have had a chat with his Whip, he would have received the order of business this morning.

MR. HOWARD: My point of order is that the minister refused to answer the question and refused to call Health estimates.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 67: minister's office, $191,744.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I'd like to point out to the Chair that vote 67 is not the Ministry of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations deliberately went out of his way....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. members.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman stood, and there was some serious discussion after that, which is unparliamentary.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Accordingly, under standing order 20, I'm going to ask the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to leave the committee and withdraw for this afternoon.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: A shameful performance, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's exactly what's going to happen. It appears that under standing order 20 the chairman's responsibility is to report this to the Speaker.

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee the Chairman asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw under standing order 20. There appears to be some reluctance on the part of the hon. member for Skeena. I have nothing left to do, sir, except report this to you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this time, it having been reported to me that the House Leader and the member for Skeena have been asked to withdraw, under standing order 20, wherein the Chairman has the authority to do so, I now must ask the member for Skeena.... There is no point of order, hon. member; there is no discussion.

[ Page 8698 ]

MR. HOWARD: The Chairman did not cite standing order 20, and there was no disorderly conduct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: You are doing this House a great disservice, Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the report of that Chairman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the government House Leader and the member for Skeena, as was reported to the Chair by the Chairman, were instructed to leave the committee. Under standing order 20, I have no alternative but to instruct the member for Skeena to withdraw from the chamber at this time.

MR. NICOLSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, there is no point of order and there is no discussion of an order from the Chair under standing order 20. I will review the Blues, hon. member, and if it is incumbent upon the Chair, appropriate corrections will be made.

At this time I instruct the member for Skeena to leave the chamber.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, if when you look at the Blues you find that you are in error, what do I do?

MR. BARRETT: What does he do then?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no discussion; there is no debate.

Sergeant-at-Arms.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, having risen from committee to report to you, Mr. Chairman stated that he had no authority. If one reads standing order 19 or 20 we see that the Chairman does have the power to name a member; he did not do that. He said that he had no power to act. He certainly did not follow the procedures laid out in standing order 20, which says:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall order members whose conduct is grossly disorderly" — if that's the way they feel — "to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's sitting; and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of any resolution.... But if, on occasion, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, deems that his powers under the standing orders are inadequate, he may name such member or members, or he may call upon the House to adjudge upon the conduct of such member or members."

Mr. Speaker, this procedure is irregular. The Chair has claimed that it had no power to act. The Chair did not exhaust the remedies available to it in committee. I would ask you to review this matter. It's often said that the Speaker has no knowledge of what goes on in committee, and that matters in committee must be resolved in the committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The comments made by the member will certainly be taken into consideration by the Chair.

MR. LEA: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matter of that particular incident is concluded.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned last week in a point of order pertaining to the process in the House regarding whether or not the opposition and the government are treated with equality, I would ask that for those instances that have happened during Committee of the Whole House — I know that you can't do it when we're not in Committee of the Whole House — you check the Hansard record of the House to ascertain this: there have been members of the opposition who have been asked to leave the House for breaking the rules of the House, without a government member being asked to leave at the same time. What I would like you to do, Mr. Chairman, is to check the record. I think you'll find that never in the history of this government over the last six years has a government member ever been kicked out of the House without an opposition member being put out at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, when you stood in your place, I noticed that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) sat and said nothing. I noticed that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was not standing in the first place, but he continued to talk while you were standing; but you kicked them both out. It appears that the Chairman will not kick out a government member unless an opposition member goes, in order to lighten the political blow to the government. I'd ask you to check the records to see whether I'm not telling the absolute truth. Never has a government member gone without an opposition member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The comment is reasonably well taken. The Chairman gives the committee the assurance that I will undertake to look at the Blues and the records of sessions past.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 67: minister's office, $191,744.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, if one didn't know better, one would get the impression that members are not anxious to discuss the estimates of the Provincial Secretary. In any event, I'm happy to proceed with discussion of these estimates, which were anticipated and which the opposition were advised of prior to coming to the House this afternoon. I'm sure they are well prepared to debate and discuss them.

It's a pleasure to be able to make a few comments on this widespread and diverse ministry which covers a great many aspects in British Columbia. First, I think it's important to appreciate that the overall budgetary increase in the estimates of the Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government Services is only 6 percent. While maintaining the services that British Columbians have come to expect from this ministry, we have been able to keep the growth in total costs to only

[ Page 8699 ]

6 percent. It's important to note that over half of the ministry's estimates are represented in the costs of administering the superannuation commission and paying the pensions of public servants.

As an example, to emphasize our belief in getting the best possible value for the tax dollar in the past year, the Queen's Printer has managed to reduce government printing costs by some $1 million. This was made possible by installing new automated press and bindery equipment, which reduced labour costs; by installing a new two-colour press capable of doing two-sided work at extremely high speeds; and by using lighter grades of paper where possible to achieve savings in printing and postage. The Queen's Printer is making great strides in improving their efficiency and reducing costs. Individually these are small items, but they do add up. Another area open for savings includes all office supplies: pens, file trays, wastepaper baskets and folders. They are small items, but in the past two years savings on these common office items have ranged from 10 percent to 50 percent. The result has been a general saving of 30 percent on more than 1,200 items purchased by the Queen's Printer, a dollar saving of $540,000 over the past two years.

One last item is photocopiers, which are common pieces of office equipment. This year, $68,000 will be saved on photocopier paper alone. By providing suppliers with a standing order rather than buying in 10-tonne lots, we're saving 6.8 percent, or some $68,000 on paper this year. That's a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of government, but those drops are filling the bucket. It is the intention of my ministry, which is responsible for so much of the day-to-day office supplies used by government, to make sure that British Columbia taxpayers get the best value for every tax dollar spent on their behalf.

As the members readily know, there's probably no other ministry responsible for such a widespread range of programs. Recreation and sport, lotteries, voting, libraries, culture and heritage conservation are just a few of the areas for which the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services has responsibility. For instance, once again the British Columbia Games have involved thousands of our citizens. It is with a great deal of pride in this province's athletes and volunteers who make the B.C. Games happen that I stand in the House and say today that the B.C. Summer and Winter Games are not only the largest athletic event in Canada; they are also the largest participation project in our country. In the past 12 months, some 200,000 British Columbians between the ages of 13 and 80, from all parts of B.C., have been involved in the playdowns to these games. The Summer Games in the Comox Valley and the recent Winter Games in Trail have set some new and very high standards for future host communities to follow. I'm sure the members for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) will join me in applauding the community spirit that made each of these games a tremendous success. In fact, with the Winter Games in Trail, for the first time ever in the B.C. Games the number of volunteers for a single games surpassed the 3,000 mark. This summer 3,760 athletes in 36 sports will travel to Vernon for the 1982 Summer Games. Next to the 1976 Olympics, this will be the largest sports event in the history of Canada. The number of communities bidding to host the games, the number of athletes and the number of volunteers is growing every year. I know that members will agree that lottery funds spent on the B.C. Games are wisely invested and provide a unique opportunity for athletes and volunteers of all ages.

While I'm on the subject of community spirit, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not provide members with an update of the first-ever British Columbia Festival of the Arts, which took place in Kamloops this last month. I announced the festival last year as the cultural equivalent of the B.C. Games, and this first-ever B.C. Festival of the Arts brought our province's musicians, dancers, visual artists and actors together at one place and time, highlighting the tremendous artistic talent that exists in British Columbia and the community spirit that supplied 800 local volunteers in Kamloops to organize everything, including transportation, meals, security and accommodation. Throughout the province, in local and regional festivals leading to Kamloops, almost 150,000 British Columbians were involved. From these individuals 1,500 went on to compete and perform at the B.C. Festival of the Arts — a unique celebration in Canada. Like the B.C. Games, the B.C. Festival of the Arts is funded by British Columbia lotteries and offers a unique provincial stage for our talented citizens. As I said at the closing ceremonies, lottery proceeds spent on the festival will pay cultural dividends for many years to come.

A program involving even more British Columbians was the recently completed enumeration. Thanks to public enthusiasm and the computerized collating system, the new list was completed almost six weeks earlier than if it had been done using the old addressograph system. This new process has saved almost $500,000 compared to the old process, and ensures an accurate and up-to-date voters' list. More than 1,000,575 registration cards were received. I should point out that anyone who is eligible can still register at any time. In addition, we now have before the House amendments to the Election Act, which we have already been dealing with and will be further debating in committee.

A further item mentioned in the throne speech was pensions. Although pensions are a far-sighted topic, it is important that British Columbians and their government prepare for the future by recognizing pension needs far in advance of an individual's actual retirement. Throughout the country the pension issue is the subject of considerable discussion, and there is quite a degree of consensus as to the problems which require attention — for instance, the need for more portable pensions in light of today's highly mobile employee, the need to ensure better pension protection for women, the need for pensions to be guarded to a degree against the impact of inflation, and the fact that costs will continue to multiply as the ratio of workers to retirees becomes even smaller. I recently introduced a Green Paper which asks British Columbians for their consideration and suggestions. I hope this paper will encourage individuals to work with government in developing a timely and effective pensions policy. I look forward to receiving practical comments from both sides of this House, from the pension industry, and from any citizen who is interested in this subject.

Mr. Chairman, an area we can all take a great deal of pride in is British Columbia's growing reputation in terms of sport and recreation. My ministry's recreation and sport branch is playing a key role in not only helping to develop high-calibre athletes, but also providing opportunities throughout this province for British Columbians of every age. For instance, the Premier's sports award program involves some 400 schools around B.C., giving children between the ages of 8 and 12 the chance to learn basic skills in nine different sports.

[ Page 8700 ]

Its chief aim is to develop talents and build personal confidence — skills these youngsters can enjoy for a lifetime.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the recreation and sports staff have completed a full program in preparation for the 1983 Canada Winter Games in Quebec. I anticipate more than 200 of our province's best athletes will be there, well-prepared to represent their home province. If last year's Canada Summer Games in Thunder Bay are any indication, our athletes will demonstrate some exceptional individual and team performances. The determination and enthusiasm of B.C.'s athletes is reflected in some tremendous gold medal performances by individuals and teams. I'll just mention a few: diver Kathy Kellemen; track and field stars Rob Lonergan and Mike Mahovlich; and our province's basketball, soccer and womens' field hockey teams. That sort of team spirit is sure to be exhibited at the Winter Games next year in Quebec, Mr. Chairman.

Under the subject of cultural heritage, we can say that this is well known to our members. Each of us appreciates that British Columbians came from many different places around the world. They chose Canada, and particularly B.C., as their home. Some months ago I announced the formation of a Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee headed by a well-known citizenship court judge, Norman Oreck, to study the report of a Vancouver conference on multiculturalism. I'm pleased to say that Judge Oreck and the committee have completed this report and presented it to the cabinet committee on cultural heritage. The report includes numerous recommendations, and while some require more discussion, others can be implemented right away, including the suggestion of a newcomer's guide and a consultative council representing B.C. cultural communities. I want to thank the members of the advisory committee for their enthusiasm and hard work in putting their report together; they certainly did an excellent job.

Mr. Chairman, one of my ministry's most popular provincewide programs is in the area of assistance to public libraries. British Columbia is recognized by other provinces as having the finest level of public library service in Canada, something we can all take a great deal of pride in. I'm pleased to announce that grants to our province's public libraries will increase this year from $5.5 million to almost $6.2 million. Consequently, the per capita grant to communities will increase to $1.60 based on the new census figures. Communities that show tremendous growth since the 1976 census will receive significant increases. Areas such as Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley and the East Kootenays have grown by up to 20 percent in the past five years, and the new per capita grants will reflect that growth. Although our province is having difficult economic times, Mr. Chairman, the government recognizes the importance of library services, and I can assure the members of this House and their constituents that it is our intention to maintain support for libraries throughout B.C.

These are just a few of the programs administered by the Provincial Secretary. As you can see, they involve services to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians and cover so many different aspects.

Before I take my seat, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recognize the work done by the many staff members of my ministry and congratulate them. I'd like to observe the excellent job done by my assistant deputy ministers: Jerry Woytack, Barry Kelsey and Allan Turner. All three are known to most of the members on both sides of the House. I'd also like to mention Mr. Dolezal, president of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, who performs an excellent service in providing all the information required on the Buildings Corporation. I won't fail to mention and include in that comment the job being done by the chairman of the Public Service Commission, Bill Long; the chairman of the Government Employee Relations Bureau, Mike Davison; the head of the Superannuation Commission, Mr. Jim Reid; and Doug Heal, deputy minister of government information programs, well-known to all members of this House.

So, Mr. Chairman, those are just a few observations on the many and diverse activities of the Provincial Secretary. I'll take my seat and look forward to questions.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to thank the minister for taking the time to give a rundown on his ministry in some detail. There is no question that in every ministry there are some positive things being done, whatever the government. I would be the first to say to the minister that we appreciate any increase given to the libraries — which he pointed out — and I wish to discuss that in more detail with him later; there are other aspects I'd like to question him on.

We're also pleased that the minister has pointed out to the House that attempts are being made — in the light of the economy — to cut down in the costs of the Queen's Printer. Those things are appreciated by all of us. When the members of the opposition take their place in debate, I think it's unfortunate that the people presume that we are here only to criticize.

Now that I've pointed out a few of the positive things the minister has done, I also want to take my other role as a member of the opposition, which is of course to criticize some of the aspects in any minister's area which cause us concern as members of the opposition. We are reflecting in debate the concerns of people in the public who have come to us and expressed their concerns. In the overall framework, that is the way I hope to attack estimates, and have attempted to throughout the past years.

I would like to move to areas under the jurisdiction of this minister that are of particular concern to me and to many other people in this province. This minister, as I believe I said last year.... I know my words are remembered by everyone in this House — the words that I stood up and said during the Provincial Secretary's estimates last year. I know Mr. Chairman remembers them. At that time I opened up the debate with the same suggestion of concern — and more than suggestion, with facts to back it up — in the whole area of partisanship, what might be called and is really misuse of the taxpayers' money by the government in the area of government propaganda.

I brought this to the attention of the minister last year. On behalf of the opposition I expressed our concern that this minister has under his control a huge propaganda weapon. It was never so until, in the last year or so, for some reason the Social Credit government, out of concern that they may be facing trouble at the polls at the next election, decided to centralize all the government information services under this one minister. I know the minister will probably stand up and tell us that this is done for efficiency, but it also sends a tremor throughout the people of the province who are concerned about these matters. It has an aura about it of Big Brother government, an attempt to brainwash the people of British Columbia. That should be done, and we expect some

[ Page 8701 ]

of that brainwashing to take place, prior to election campaigns, using partisan moneys of the different parties. But there is one thing that on behalf of many other citizens I will continue to object to: that is when any government almost wantonly decides that when given money to use for the benefit of all the citizens of B.C., they may take chunks of that money and use it to further their own political purposes.

I brought this to the minister's attention last year, and strangely enough, the minister has certainly not curtailed any of this overt use of government money for political purposes. Instead we find that now this minister has further centralized and gathered together a massive propaganda machine.

There are two areas that point to that. First, extensive powers have been given to his deputy in charge of public information. He is now apparently in charge of gathering together all the ministry's propaganda — or government services, as he may call them, information. I really must say most of it is government propaganda, used entirely to embellish the particular minister who the material is emanating from. It is all gathered now under one person. That was starting to be done when I spoke last year, but now we find that that has gone even further. Now we find that one sole advertising agency has been given the full responsibility for centralizing all the provincial advertising within the government. No matter how many times the minister may get up and attempt to profess that this is done in the interests of efficiency, Mr. Chairman, the public perceives this as an attempt by the Social Credit government to centralize their propaganda material. The very fact that the person chosen head of this centralized advertising for all the ministries in this province happens to have connections with the Social Credit Party does not allay our fears. Everyone has a right to belong to a party. But surely it is a very insensitive government that decides to appoint someone with close ties to the Social Credit Party to be in charge of all their centralized advertising.

It has about it an aura of a gigantic propaganda machine being set up for the coming election, but it is also eliminating all competition from the other advertising agencies. This is really amazing coming from a government which has always professed to be the free enterprise government of this province.

Here is another example of their complete totalitarian method of governing this province, under this minister, who appears very innocuous. He talks about arts festivals, drama, and sports festivals, which we all applaud to some degree, although we will have questions on them later. But believe it or not, in that minister's hands is a gigantic propaganda machine, Mr. Chairman. I hope that today the minister is going to be able to stand up and allay the fears, not only of me as his critic but of many people in this province, that the Social Credit Party will benefit from that machinery set up by the Social Credit government to further their fortunes in the next election.

I have a couple of specific questions on this area for that minister. I have in front of me — and I'm sure we've all seen it — the "B.C. Spirit" logo. This has suddenly appeared all over the province of British Columbia. It appears on all the government literature that is going out. It appears in most of their newspaper advertising. It appears on the ships we know — the ferry fleet. You name it, we are seeing the logo everywhere. Nobody has anything against that particular logo, although obviously it is not original. I have almost a duplicate copy of the logo used in Ontario, so it certainly shows us that with the importing of these people from Ontario into the Premier's office, obviously they are bringing with them ideas from Ontario which they presume will work here in British Columbia. Well, time will tell.

Mr. Chairman, what I specifically want to ask that minister is this. How can you assure not only me and the NDP but the Conservative Party, the Liberals, and any other party that may run in the next election, that that logo is not going to appear everywhere on Social Credit Party literature? Secondly, when you keep using this logo on the tremendous amount of material that comes from the various ministries, how are you going to differentiate between that logo talking about the government of B.C. and the Social Credit Party of B.C.? To some people it may seem rather nit-picking on my part to be discussing this particular logo, but to my mind it is symbolic of the Social Credit government that they fail to see that there must always be a very distinct line between what is used by a party and what is used by the government, if that party happens to be in power. Surely that is a matter of basic political ethics.

Mr. Chairman. nothing that that minister has done in the last year allays my fears that he has no concern whatsoever about this overt partisanship that he and his government indulge in, because they are fuzzing the line between political party and government. Once that happens, Mr. Chairman, it becomes very dangerous, because the public is soon going to be confused also. That government has a responsibility to use the taxpayers' money judiciously and economically in a non-partisan way. I'd like the minister to tell us a little more about the use of this logo. We want assurances that this is not going to be used on a partisan basis in any way. I'm asking about something that I'm afraid has already been done. At the moment the lines are becoming very blurred. It's very dangerous. That minister now has more than $20 million at his disposal to spend on government advertising. I think we would like to hear from the minister just how much of that money he's intending to spend this year. I'd also like to hear from the minister about what it's going to be used for.

I would also like to ask the minister if he thinks that, particularly in an election period building up to an election time.... Some people are beginning to wonder if this government will ever call another election. Obviously we're getting into the last lap. What is he going to do to ensure that the moneys...?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Two more years!

MRS. DAILLY: Well, two more years — that's fine. Let's just hope that in the next two years the money entrusted to the Social Credit government is not used to try to make sure that they'll become the next government. We don't want the money which has been entrusted to that minister to be used for any partisan purposes whatsoever. We've got to hear that from that minister. Even though he may assure us in this House, I want to tell him that he and his government are going to be watched very closely not only by me but by all people in this province.

I know I'm not to refer to pieces of legislation, but I have just placed a bill on the order paper. I'm sure you have all read the title, which has to do with the elimination of partisan advertising by government. Sadly, it has reached the point where such a bill is necessary in some places. I regret to say that I have to introduce such a bill in this House. It's only because of this government's actions in the past few years that

[ Page 8702 ]

I have felt it necessary to place this bill on the order paper. I know the government will also agree that this bill is important, and they will no doubt call and pass it before the end of this session. Any government interested in running their government in an impartial way, using the money in a way that will benefit all the people and not just their own political party, will ensure passage of my bill.

Mr. Chairman, I've got a lot more questions to ask the minister. But at the moment I want to deal primarily with the biggest concern we have with this minister: the power vested in his ministry, maybe by his Premier, to set up a propaganda arm. That leads me into the area of lotteries, which is going to be followed up.... By the way, my concern about the propaganda arm of this government will be followed up by the member for Victoria; following that, hopefully, we will have the other member for Victoria following up on our concern over partisan use of lotteries. But before I take my seat to allow them to move into this very important area, I would simply like to say to the minister, because we're going to move into it in more detail, that the other area of great partisanship — what I consider, again, not using the people's money properly — is in lotteries.

You know, I feel like a broken record. For at least the last six years I've been up on my feet asking for a complete cleanup of the ways lottery grants are dispensed in this province. It started back when the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was Provincial Secretary and changed the whole Lottery Act so that it allowed for these special grants to be made. As you know, we have never quarreled with grants being made on the basis of committees selecting the recipients — grants for art, culture and medicine. Well, there are a few things there I want to discuss later, but at least they have a structure. The grants which the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the present Minister of Human Resources, brought in were brought in so they could be dispensed by the minister in charge of this, without any criteria and without any public disclosure of whom the moneys went to. Mr. Chairman, do you know how much money has been dispensed through the Lottery Fund since 1975? Over $50 million. Some of that money is quite open — we know what happened to it; we know how it was sent out. But there is a large amount of that money that raises some serious questions about that minister and his government using lottery funds on a partisan basis and for the promotion of their own political fortunes.

The ombudsman happens to agree with me after a major study. I brought this up with the minister before. I'm not going to bore the House by reading all his recommendations again, but in the report of the ombudsman, where he made some very cogent remarks, expressing the things that I had said in this House over a number of years — it's interesting that he never once even asked me for my opinion, so he obviously arrived at this after due study of citizens who had put in complaints about the Lottery Funds — he said: "Until this government sets up an advisory committee to dispense these funds, they will always be open to suspicion that they are using it to promote their political fortunes."

That minister, for some reason or other, simply does not show any concern for establishing such a committee. My question again to the minister — it's the sixth time of asking, but not necessarily that minister — is: why will you not set up an advisory committee which will dispense the Lottery Funds in a fair, open way, with all criteria listed, so that everyone has their questions answered and knows why they're getting — and perhaps why they did not get — a lottery grant? Why won't you set up this committee? Why do you still want to maintain it out of your office — this discretionary right to hand out lottery funds? You may say that it's done through this and it's done through that, but you have shown by one action alone in the last few months that your attitude to the dispensing of lottery funds is entirely a Big Brother attitude.

It is absolutely amazing that that minister actually believes that he can walk into a town in our province where he sees a bowling game on and suddenly decide that he wants to give some money to the community group that is sponsoring the bowling tournament. In this case it happened to be the Big Brothers. We're all in favour of the Big Brothers, but can you imagine that that minister suddenly decided, while he was watching this bowling game, that he was going to give them $1,000 out of the Lottery Fund? Isn't it interesting. It wasn't political at all; he was only bowling with the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond). It's strange that he hasn't gone to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), for example, or to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and had a bowling game with them in order to hand over some money to the lottery.

But you know, putting all that aside, you get letters from his office stating to people out there: "You will have to be very careful to fill out all these forms; there are certain criteria for getting lottery funds." Those are the kind of letters that go out to people, especially when they're refused, and then at the same time these people see that the minister thinks that he can, with this paternalistic, benevolent, Big Brother attitude, just suddenly decide that he's going to give a thousand dollars here and a thousand dollars there on his own. What kind of criterion is that?

MR. KING: Without an application.

MRS. DAILLY: With no application, yet his director keeps sending letters out: "Don't expect it without filling in the forms. We are very strict about how we give out these moneys." That minister walks around this province — drives, flies, whatever — and hands out money as if it's his money and not the money of the people who bought the tickets. I'd like the minister to vindicate that action, but, to my mind, the very fact that the minister did it shows that he has no understanding that those moneys are entrusted to him. They're not for him to use at his whim. Then he's running around asking everyone to buy more lottery tickets. Would you want to buy lottery tickets if you knew that instead of just going to the charitable things you want it to, it depends on the whim of a minister where the money goes?

I've got a letter here from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). It's one of his letters to his constituency, in which he says something to the effect of, well, the lotteries are great, and I want you to know there's nothing partisan about the way we hand out lottery moneys in this province. Let me quote him so I'm not taking the chance of misquoting this minister. This is from Tom Waterland, March 17, 1982; it's a letter in the Similkameen Spotlight. He says: "The NDP's accusations that constituencies with the Social Credit MLAs are favoured in the distribution of lottery grants are totally groundless. The grants are made strictly on the merits of a particular application." The second member for Victoria will be elaborating on that aspect.

Then the minister goes on to say: "I know from my own experience as your MLA that simply helping a group fill out

[ Page 8703 ]

an application for a lottery grant is not enough." Now this is the part I want you to listen to, and I'm sure the critics for the Ministry of Forests will find this interesting. This is what the minister said: "It is my added responsibility to go to bat for you in Victoria by actively pursuing the moneys you request." Doesn't that make the game even and balanced? Mr. Waterland, who happens to be a cabinet minister, of course doesn't have any particular clout with his colleagues in the cabinet, but he's suggesting that more grants are going to Social Credit because he really does have a little more clout. Of course he does, and for a minister to suggest that this is how you go about getting lottery grants is appalling.

There are many more things I wish to discuss, but at this time I want to deal particularly with the partisan thrust of this government — with what I consider to be the complete abuse of their responsibilities in handling taxpayer money through that minister in a large propaganda machinery. I'm going to sit down because the member for Victoria wishes to continue on the subject of our concerns over the government's information propaganda machinery.

MR. BARBER: I have a couple of questions for the minister and I would appreciate it if he could answer them now. What is the current budget of the Government Production Centre? As well, what is the approved staffing level for that centre? And how many positions are currently filled at the Government Production Centre?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll get it for you.

MR. BARBER: I'll wait.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate should proceed, hon. members. Perhaps the first member for Victoria could continue.

MR. BARBER: Debate will proceed when we get the answers. In the meantime, just as the minister is entitled to have a moment to look up the answer, we're entitled to have a moment to wait for the answer. There is no reason at all to change subjects while we're waiting for an answer.

The Chairman will know that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) arbitrarily changed the form of the estimates book this year, and that information, which was ordinarily available, is not. If he hadn't so changed the book we wouldn't have to ask the questions. However, because he did change it arbitrarily and we're the victims of that change, it therefore takes a moment to get the answers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: With every respect, I think the member does have that information. It is available in the distribution estimates that support the global figures indicated in the estimates book.

In answer to his question, the Government Production Centre budget for the current fiscal year is $576,745, less budgeted recoveries of $194,000. This compares with the previous year's budget of $698,326, less budgeted recoveries of $50,000. The permanent staff is four: an acting director and production manager — the same person; a manager of technical operations; a switcher-editor; and an audio-operator. The others are temporary auxiliaries or contract staff.

MR. BARBER: How many?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I show seven temporary auxiliary staff employed on a regular basis.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, thanks for waiting. It's the only practical way we can do it.

Can the minister indicate how many persons are currently on contract to the Government Production Centre, and what is the aggregate value of those contracts?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll have to get back to the member in a few moments to answer that question.

MR. BARBER: That's fine. I don't mind waiting for that.

The Government Production Centre, with a budget this year of $576,000, has been taken over by the office of the Premier. This has been demonstrated in the past and I will demonstrate it again today. It has been taken over in terms of program content and in terms of at least one of the key personnel. It has been specifically taken over by Doug Heal. Mr. Heal's partisanship is well known and well established. This so-called deputy minister was not appointed by the Public Service Commission in the ordinary fashion at all, except for formality's sake; he was appointed as the result of a report which he wrote and which recommended hiring someone like himself. Mr. Heal was hired for political and partisan reasons. He is not a deputy minister like any other we've seen. He is a deputy minister in name only; his entire function is political and partisan.

The Government Production Centre began as an agency of the Ministry of Health during our first administration. The intent of that agency was honest and appropriate: it was to make films on health, diet and care for people in British Columbia. That's all there was to it. It was set up to act as a television production centre for the ministry in order to teach kids how to brush their teeth and old folks how to look after their diet, and everything in between. When Social Credit came into office, they relatively quickly understood how they could use this for partisan purposes, but even they took a while to figure it out; that is, until Mr. Heal came to town. When Doug Heal was appointed, he immediately assumed authority for the operations of that centre and had it transferred from Health to himself. This had been previously in the works, but it was finalized in an operational way by Mr. Heal. We have seen the deliberate subversion of the original purpose of that Government Production Centre as a health information program to what it is today: a television studio with work budgeted, as the minister indicated, in excess of $575,000.

What is the purpose of this work? We'll be revealing that shortly. Briefly, however, I want to trace the history of the Government Production Centre, whose original purposes were honourable, reasonable and appropriate. The uses to which Mr. Heal, agent of the Premier, has currently put it are not honourable or appropriate, and are an abuse of public funds.

Earlier this year, the Government Production Centre supposedly closed down for a short while. Much fuss was made that they had incompetently budgeted, and were temporarily shut down because of a cash shortfall. This reason was false and could not be substantiated: in fact, it was a cover story. The real reason for the temporary shutdown was to get rid of certain employees who had begun to raise questions about the operations of the centre, not because of alleged cash-flow problems that was then, and is now, nonsense. The minister

[ Page 8704 ]

indicated last year that cash recoveries for the Government Production Centre were only $50,000, and that the budget for the whole centre was in excess of $600,000. It is absurd to argue that an agency with a budget of over $600,000 could be closed down because of a cash shortfall.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, we propose to demonstrate today that certain people were dismissed from the staff of the Government Production Centre because they began to raise questions about the propriety of using that studio for partisan purposes under the regime of Mr. Heal and the Premier of this province. Within short order the Government Production Centre was in business again, having been temporarily suspended for only a brief period. Its budget was restored almost intact. The four principals — the public servants operating it — were retained on staff, and the government has now gone to a contract situation because they didn't like the in-house situation. They didn't like it because of the considerable fuss raised in the House by those persons — in fact, of January 15 by myself....

HON. MR. WOLFE: They always were on contract.

MR. BARBER: What are you talking about?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I said they always were on contract.

MR. BARBER: You got rid of certain contracts, and you changed the terms and conditions of some contracts in order to get rid of others. You rewrote twelve-month contracts to three-month contracts to make it difficult for some of those people to hold their jobs.

HON. MR. WOLFE: They were on contract before and they are now.

MR. BARBER: You rewrote them arbitrarily to get rid of those individuals, and we think you did so because you were embarrassed about the revelations that were forthcoming — you were caught using that centre for partisan purposes.

Let me illustrate. The Deputy Premier, the most notoriously partisan member of that coalition, had actually talked the Government Production Centre into doing a program called, in its working form, "The Constitution Show." The purpose of this program was to advocate, in an entirely political way, the view of Social Credit on the debate surrounding the Constitution of Canada. This was a program that had no legitimate purpose for disseminating public information. The whole purpose was outlined by the Deputy Premier herself, and I'll be tabling a copy of a memo in which referral is made to it. The memo authored by the chief of the Government Production Centre outlines what the government intended to do.

The reason for this cover story about a cash shortfall and for the temporary closing of the centre is, we argue — and I believe can prove — that the government was increasingly disturbed about the revelations of partisanship being imposed by Mr. Heal on behalf of the Premier on the operations of an otherwise useful and appropriate vehicle, the Government Production Centre. I repeat that the claim that a cash shortfall was the reason for the closure in January of this year cannot be substantiated. The only agencies of government — and we called every comptroller or their deputy — that owed any money at all in January of this year to the Government Production Centre was Agriculture, which owed $600, and Human Resources, which owed $13,481, of which they were disputing $4,950. Assuming that you accept the larger figures, approximately $14,000 was owed the Government Production Centre.

On this phony basis, the government was able to shut it down temporarily, arbitrarily rewrite contracts and thereby attempt to get itself off the hook of political difficulties. The Government Production Centre has been embarrassed by the revelations about the imposed partisanship which they've had to suffer. They've been embarrassed by other problems as well.

Let me illustrate. As of January of this year — and I gather the situation remains current — there is a five-camera mobile unit owned by the Government Production Centre. The Crown spent $235,000 on it. It has never been used as of January of this year, and, I'm advised informally, ever since as well. It has never been used even though on March 9, 1981, the assistant director, Mr. Farkas, indicated that the five-camera mobile unit would have a technical producer and a technical crew and be responsible for aiding the Government Production Centre in its operations.

I received a letter dated January 11 of this year from Derek Gardner, who is an independent producer. Mr. Gardner verifies as well that $235,000 was wasted on a five-camera mobile unit that was never used. I will quote from the paragraph of his letter to me and to Mr. Heal and Mr. Chazottes as well.

"There is a five-camera, videotape mobile languishing in a parking lot in Victoria. It is now the property of the Government Production Centre. After three attempts it is now finished and ready for work. But what work? These vehicles have a very limited use, primarily sports or special events. To my knowledge the sports and recreation department don't have the funding available, and unless the centre were contemplating covering the ballet or the symphony, it would have little use. The value on the used market for this type of vehicle is minimal."

A total of $235,000 was spent on this mobile unit. I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary what use has been made of it. Could any justification be offered for this incredible expenditure. In regard to hiring practices, I am advised that people were hired on the promise of a 12-month contract. Those promises were not kept; in fact the people who were hired discovered when they arrived that it had been changed arbitrarily.

Again I quote from Mr. Gardner's letter:

"Once again, from a personal point of view, the evolution of our personal-service contracts was mystifying. We started with half-page 'agreements' that held little protection for the Crown or for us. We were then offered one-year contracts with guaranteed minimum days of work — standard practice for the industry — in return for lowering our daily rates. After this contract had been struck, the terms were changed to three-month durations. We objected and were told that it was strictly a bookkeeping measure and that we would still have guaranteed tenure — guaranteed verbally. The whole process of contract negotiation was most unpleasant."

[ Page 8705 ]

He goes on to make some personal remarks about the individuals he dealt with. There is no need to repeat those here as the minister has a copy of the letter.

Another producer indicated that he was required to "alter invoices" and engage in what he also called "creative bookkeeping." Let me, if I may, read from the comments of that producer again, Mr. Gardner. This is a memo to Gloria White, who, as the minister will know, is the acting director of the Government Production Centre. On November 18, 1981, Mr. Gardner said:

"Yesterday I was asked to alter my invoice to charge some of my time to shows. I did so under protest. I must make it clear that I will not repeat this. There was not enough related work to warrant writing off any 'days.' I have my own system for keeping track of hours worked on shows. When I have totalled up a day's work on a show, I bill the appropriate show, but not before then. I am expected to be responsible for a show's budget, which includes billing my services, I am the best judge of how my time has been spent, and I will not be party to the new 'creative bookkeeping.'"

There is further paragraph which talks about the producer's contract. That was also written by Mr. Gardner, who is a reputable, independent producer in British Columbia. I will table the memo and this internal document, where he was asked and refused to participate in what he called "altering invoices" and "creative bookkeeping."

We also have evidence of direct political interference by the Premier himself. This is the case of Lori Lee Pacholzuk. I have another question for the minister: is she still seconded to the office of the acting director of the Government Production Centre?

Let me read from a memo. On December 15, 1981, Gloria White sent a memo to all of her staff in regard to Lori Pacholzuk.

"Please welcome Ms. Lori Pacholzuk who joins the centre today as my administrative assistant. Miss Pacholzuk has been seconded to the centre on a temporary basis from the office of the government information services. Lori will be assisting me in the overall tasks of furthering 'special programs' necessary for GPC-ministerial relations."

Who is Lori Lee Pacholzuk, Mr. Chairman? She was the media coordinator for the Social Credit Party. She held this position until she was hired in the Premier's office. At the time of her hiring she was 23 years of age. She was from Penticton and earns $19,500 a year as a media liaison officer in the government information programs office.

That's not too bad by itself until you read the order-in-council which appointed her on December 3, 1981. It's signed by the minister whose estimates we are debating and the Premier, Mr. Bennett. It is order-in-council 2538: "...the position of media liaison officer in the office of the deputy minister, government information programs, Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services, be designated as one requiring the incumbent to act in a confidential capacity to the Premier." The order then goes on to set her salary at $19,500 and indicates other terms and conditions of employment.

Here is a woman who was the media liaison officer for the Social Credit Party. She had no other qualifications. She is then appointed by order-in-council to act in a confidential capacity to the Premier in the office of Mr. Heal. Shortly thereafter, she turns up in the office of the director of the Government Production Centre as her administrative assistant. According to the memo, an internal document, Mrs. White described her task as being "furthering special programs necessary for Government Production Centre ministerial relations."

What's going on here? They hire a Socred hack, they appoint her to Doug Heal's office, they turn around and reappoint her to the allegedly non-partisan Government Production Centre. This is a clear subversion of the original intent of the Government Production Centre. This is a subversion of the operations of that centre for partisan purposes. No person who has been hired "in a confidential capacity to the Premier" should then have any hand whatever in determining the content or the conduct of the programs coming out of the Government Production Centre. The only reason this government might have hired Miss Pacholzuk for the Government Production Centre is political. There can be no other justification. The woman in question evidently has no professional background in television: she had never previously worked at the Government Production Centre; her only job was to further the political fortunes of Social Credit, which she is — or as of January of this year was — still doing. The way she was doing it was by being seconded from the party to Mr. Heal to the Government Production Centre. That was the route followed by Miss Pacholzuk.

I ask the Provincial Secretary again whether or not Miss Pacholzuk is still in that office: and if so, what are her duties? As far as we can tell, from beginning to end they have been entirely partisan. They were to represent the political will of the Premier to the staff of the Government Production Centre, some of whom, one could reasonably expect, opposed the partisanship imposed upon them by the Premier and by his agent Mr. Heal.

The political supervision of the Government Production Centre was dramatically escalated in December last year. One of the reasons it was escalated was that in March 1981 Hollywood producers Gayle and Norman Sedawie actually wrote a script for a program which they called "TV or Not TV." In this script cabinet ministers were advised to keep their zippers up, to keep their pantlegs down, not to show too much cleavage on television, not to wear fancy jewellery that might shine and sparkle in the TV lens, and on and on it went. Fourteen thousand dollars later — the government had spent on the Sedawies — we discovered what this government thinks of that production centre.

The purpose of the script, "TV or Not TV," which I will release to this committee — I have a copy of it — is clearly to improve the personal image of Socred cabinet ministers. That is an improper use of public funds. It may not be illegal, but it is certainly unethical. If the Socreds want to spend money improving the five-o'clock- shadow problems of their members, they may do so, but let it come from their own pockets. The $14,000 wasted on this program should never have been spent in the first place — if the government had known the difference between party politics and party programs, which they should pay for out of their coffers, and legitimate programs of public information, which are a legitimate bill on the people of British Columbia.

The program that the Sedawies were asked to do they were asked to do because the Deputy Premier and Mr. Heal cooked it tip. From the evidence we have, it seems they decided that the personal images of the Socred ministers weren't good enough. In fact, the script specifically refers to

[ Page 8706 ]

people who could be clearly identified as the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Premier himself. There are various amusing passages in which they act out the characters of a person who has flame-red hair, another minister who is clearly the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and someone who is obviously the Premier, judging from the comments about five-o'clock shadow.

That expenditure of $14,000 was absolutely improper. It should never have been made. It should never have been authorized. It should never have been paid. The bill itself, we argue, should, even at this date, be paid by the Social Credit Party, and the government should be reimbursed for it. No doubt the Sedawies are very good at their business, which is producing Hollywood television programs. That is absolutely irrelevant to the interests of the people of British Columbia. It is not the business of the Government Production Centre to turn itself into Hollywood North. It is not the business of this government to commission Hollywood producers, at a cost of $14,000 for the script alone, to tell cabinet ministers how to improve their personal image on television. This money was wasted from beginning to end. Its expenditure was improper from beginning to end. Even the Liberals in Ottawa would never imagine they could get away with such partisan abuse of public funds.

But there's more. In late 1980 the Deputy Premier, as I mentioned before — and I will go into it in detail now — ordered that the Government Production Centre put together a 30-minute television program promoting the Social Credit government view of the constitution debate. This program was actually assigned a producer and a budget, and was intended to be aired across British Columbia. It's operating title was "A Unique Coexistence," subtitled "The Constitution Show." The whole project was created with considerable secrecy, and various memos passed among the staff, telling them that the Deputy Premier was worried that this might be leaked to the press or leaked to the opposition. Nine thousand dollars was actually spent on this program. It was only abandoned when the first controversy took place in regard to Hollywood North.

Let me read from a memo signed by Gloria White. This memo, which came out in late December 1980 or early January 1981 — I do not have the date — said:

"Deputy Premier Mrs. Grace McCarthy has also asked me to design a half-hour program regarding the constitution and British Columbia for national viewing. This program could be done in the studio either Sunday January 18 or Sunday January 25. This would mean quick strike of "Senior Chef" — which is a legitimate program that this television studio produces — "and a set of 'Constitution.' But it is early for me to confirm these plans. I will keep you all posted.

"Copy to Maurice Chazottes."

The program never actually came off. The reason for it: they got caught. The reason for it: it was intended from beginning to end to be partisan. The purpose of this "Constitution Show" was to do nothing other than advocate the political views of the leader of the Social Credit Party and Premier of this province. That was not in fact a legitimate proposal for the Government Production Centre. We're glad that we raised this issue at the time we did, and thereby killed this ridiculous television program.

If Social Credit wants to carry on its fight with the Prime Minister — although lately it's become more of a love-in than a fight — let them do so at their own expense. It is not appropriate to spend $9,000 on preproduction work for a show that had no other purpose than that of advocating the political views of Social Credit in regard to the constitution debate. The Deputy Premier had no right whatever to make the request she did. If ever there was proof of political interference in the operations of the Government Production Centre, it is this memo — an internal memo signed by Mrs. White, acting director of the Government Production Centre. It is regrettable that Mrs. White accepted the request. I wish she had refused it outright, but that's for her to deal with. We're not interested in attacking public servants; we are critical of a Deputy Premier who would attempt to subvert for political purposes this Government Production Centre. We have the proof; I will table this memo in the House as well, if the minister doubts the authenticity of our argument.

A show called "TV or Not TV" was an abuse of public funds, and $14,000 was wasted. A show called "The Constitution Show" was an abuse of public funds, and $9,000 was wasted on that. The only purpose of these programs was to aid and abet the political and personal image of the Socreds and their ministers. We charge, Mr. Chairman, that this is a political corruption of the original purposes of the Government Production Centre. It is a political corruption to ask them to undertake programs called "TV or Not TV" or another show about the constitution. It is a political corruption for the Deputy Premier, who has nothing whatever to do with the online administration of this agency, to ask them to undertake such a program. If it were legitimate it should surely have come from the Provincial Secretary himself; if it were legitimate it might even have come from Mr. Heal, but no, it didn't do either of those two things. It came straight from the most partisan member of the coalition government in British Columbia, the Deputy Premier, Mrs. McCarthy.

You need look no further for proof of political interference than the existence of the Sedawie script, advising cabinet ministers to "roll up their flies and roll down their trousers," which is literally what it did — and I'm not being crude at all; that's absolutely in the script.

It is an abuse for the Deputy Premier to request yet another program to promote the views held by this government on the constitution. The way for them to promote their views is here in this Legislature; it is there in the Parliament of Canada. It is not — repeat not — through a government television studio taking unfair, unreasonable and improper advantage of one of the most powerful mediums that could ever influence public opinion. If Social Credit wants to put together a TV show to advocate their views, that's fine; let them do it at their own expense. To do this at public expense through the Government Production Centre is from beginning to end an abuse and a subversion of the purposes of that centre that cannot be tolerated by this Legislature.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, for some time now I've been extremely concerned about the distribution of lottery grants. As the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and my colleague from Victoria have outlined, the ombudsman has looked at this particular situation and has made a series of recommendations which indicate clearly that the government has been acting in a totally partisan way in the distribution of the lottery grants. I think all the people in British Columbia know that something is wrong in the distribution of these grants — they know it intuitively — but I wanted to do

[ Page 8707 ]

something to see if I could find out exactly what was going on.

I asked a couple of people that I know who happen to be PhD researchers who conduct research for the federal and provincial governments to look at the ombudsman's report, to look at the concerns put forward by various community groups, to look at the packages and statements of lottery grants issued by the Provincial Secretary, to see if we could empirically demonstrate that political affiliation was the major determining factor in the distribution of these grants. Let me tell you some of the basic aspects of their study.

First of all, the argument that some grants benefit more than one electoral area is, of course, correct. So those particular grants that benefited more than one electoral area had to be removed from the study. Grants that benefited the entire province, such as the Summer Games or a student camp or a music festival, etc., also had to be removed from the study. We had to remove the bias to make sure that the grant being assigned was clearly within the boundary of one benefiting area, one electoral area. Clearly a grant to the city of Victoria can also benefit Oak Bay; Vancouver South and Vancouver Centre can also be cross-benefiting in terms of grants. So the urban area of Vancouver was withdrawn from the study, as were the municipalities of Victoria and Oak Bay. As it turns out, the grants to ridings such as Esquimalt go to areas such as Sooke or Jordan River, etc.; in other words, they're far removed geographically from the other more urban area of the constituency.

Saanich, for example, remained in the study because all of the grants appeared to be in the Sidney and North Saanich areas, and not immediately adjacent to the city of Victoria. What I'm trying to explain is that these researchers did everything possible to ensure that if a grant to a particular riding benefited an adjacent riding, then that grant was removed, or in constituencies where it was absolutely impossible to determine clearly that it was going to one particular riding, that riding was removed. In other words, the central ridings of Vancouver, Victoria and Oak Bay, and any grants that benefited more than one riding, were removed.

The results are very, very distressing indeed. The results indicate that political affiliation is the major determining factor in the granting of the lottery grant. The per capita and gross grant sizes bear no relationship whatsoever to population. An argument put forward in defence of the lottery granting process by the Provincial Secretary was that an area of large population would tend to have more grants, or that would be a variable which would influence the total grant size or the per capita grant size allocated into that electoral area. Population is clearly not a variable. All the grants since 1979, with the exception of the ones I've already outlined, were run through a computer. Population was considered as a possible variable. What happens is that population is not a factor. The likelihood of the distribution of grants based on population is less than 5 percent. Political affiliation is the main determining factor all over the province.

Let me give you the results of the study. We find that the average grant and the average per capita grant — mean grant — along party lines are as follows. The NDP constituencies have values of $98,000 by average, and per capita of $3.87; Social Credit ridings record average $162,900, and a per capita average of $6.54. In other words, Social Credit constituencies are awarded more than half again as much as NDP constituencies. That is clearly demonstrated by these doctoral researchers in statistical research. I'll happily make the data cards available to any research organization and to the ombudsman's office with the results of this study when it's completed.

I would like to give you some of the straight numerical breakdown by party affiliation. The number one constituency organization in terms of per capita grant and gross grant is the riding of Yale-Lillooet, which totalled $342,000 with a per capita average of $18.38. The lowest is the NDP riding of Maillardville-Coquitlam, with not one dime awarded and a mean average of zero. Shame!

I challenge the Provincial Secretary to make available to this Legislature all of the grant applications — not just the ones that are awarded. We will turn those over to an independent research group and we will ask them to submit a report to this House. If you think that you can get by with the argument that there are fewer requests coming in from NDP ridings, or that NDP members are not actively pursuing these on behalf of their constituents, I challenge you in this House: you make all of the applications available to this House and we will take them to an independent research group to make an independent report to the Legislature. It is scandalous that the top awards are going not on a population basis.

Clearly if you have a large population you expect more applications and more successful receipts of grants. But here you've got Yale-Lillooet with $18.38 per person, Kootenay with $l4.43 per person, South Peace with$13.83 per person, and North Peace with S10.80 per person. Nelson-Creston was up in the top ten because there was one major grant given there to a senior citizens' home, which was almost the entire amount. Take a look at the bottom: Maillardville-Coquitlam, zero; Prince Rupert, 16 cents per constituent, compared with Yale-Lillooet with $18.38: North Island, 89 cents, compared with Yale-Lillooet with $18.38; New Westminster, $1.13 per capita, and a gross amount of $33.350; and so on.

We took all of the grants that were not influenced by bias. We removed the bias from the study. We took all of the other grants and ran them through the computer on the basis of population and all the other arguments put forward by the government to argue that there was some fairness and equity in the distribution of these grants. There isn't. The computer study indicates, without a doubt, that political affiliation is the main determining factor in the receipt of the grants. That is absolutely scandalous.

The only way that the public can be served properly.... In good faith, the citizens of this province buy lottery grants because of that gamble and hope that perhaps they may end up a winner, but also because they are under the understanding that the money that is given to the Crown from the proceeds of those sales will go to worthy causes and will benefit the community in a wide range of worthwhile endeavours. But when we have the granting process so biased on the basis of the political affiliation of the electoral riding from which the application originates, it is absolutely unfair. The ombudsman, with his report, attempted to get at the core of problems in terms of the committee that makes the grants. The only way we can get to the bottom of this Socred pork-barrel is for the Provincial Secretary to make available to this House and to the public all the applications that have been made, no matter what electoral district. Then we will look at the ones that have been accepted and turned down. We will then make recommendations on a process that will remove the pork-barrel aspect of this travesty.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 8708 ]

This study indicates that political affiliation is the main determining factor in the acceptance of grant applications. Social Credit ridings get 50 percent more on average and on gross grant size, and also on per capita grant size. There is a totally disproportionate representation of Social Credit ridings at the top in terms of the gross grants received. The NDP ridings are clearly at the bottom.

I have a scatter diagram produced by the computer which very clearly indicates that population is not a variable or factor; political affiliation is. That is the scandalous finding which has been clearly indicated in this study. We'll be making all the information available to the press. We'll be making the information on the cards, the data cards themselves and all of the documentation from this study available to some independent research group that can clear the air on this pork-barrel that is really acting in bad faith for the public.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I hasten to make a few short remarks regarding the statement just made by the hon. member indicating the misuse of lottery funds. Nothing can be further from the facts.

Lottery funds, as has been stated by this party and government many times, are distributed according to need, application and criteria that do not vary from constituency to constituency. That's been amply proven many times. Where there is no need, there are no funds.

He talks about New Westminster. I'd hasten to tell him how grandly New Westminster has been treated by this government. It has one of the finest courthouse complexes in Canada, with a beautiful library which looks like the Taj Mahal. Not only that, but Douglas College is being constructed there for multimillions of dollars, also with libraries bulging out of all ends; a tremendous complex recently opened. That's in the constituency of New Westminster. Don't tell us that's a Social Credit constituency.

The waterfront development is an exciting development, even more exciting than False Creek on the Fraser River in Vancouver. That's for Westminster. And they talk about inequities? I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I should be complaining that too much is going to opposition constituencies, but we don't talk that way in our party. We say: "Fairness to all and favours to none."

MR. KING: I was interested in the comments of the member who just sat down. I certainly receive different messages from the community out there. There does seem to be a great deal of concern regarding the awarding of lottery applications, but before I deal with those I want to deal briefly with the media centre that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) spoke about. I want to read to the minister an editorial from the Salmon Arm Observer respecting this question that I think should be read into the record of the House, and that I think the member should be aware of. It is dated April 21, 1982, and is entitled: "Managed News Big Difference."

"The opposition has termed outrageous statements the British Columbia government has spent $200,000 looking into setting up its own news service — and it is outrageous, but more because of the implication than the money. Provincial Secretary Evan Wolfe admits the study is going on, and defends it because the government wants to provide the people with better information.

"He says there's nothing new in the idea. It's already being done in Alberta. He's right. It is nothing new. It's been done in Nazi Germany, in Soviet Russia and in a host of tinpot dictatorships around the world. Its history in democratic jurisdictions, on the other hand, is much more limited, and a good thing too, or we'd never have had correction of Watergate or other incidents of wrongdoing in high places.

"If Mr. Wolfe still has trouble understanding concern on this issue, he need look no further than his own dictionary. In ours a newsman or woman is described as 'a person employed to collect and help disseminate news,' which is in turn described as 'reports of recent events or public intelligence and information.' A propagandist on the other hand is described as 'a person devoted to the propagation of the particular doctrines and principles of a movement or organization,' and propaganda as 'information spread widely for the purpose of helping a particular person, group movement, etc.'

"The difference in the definitions is not subtle. Free people won't require a lengthy explanation of that difference; they'll know it."

Mr. Chairman, I submit that the Provincial Secretary should recognize the distinction when we see him and his colleagues utilizing public funds for the media centre for television extravaganzas directed solely at improving the shaken image of some of his cabinet colleagues, and when we see further initiatives which seek to control the method of reporting news. We have a free public press gallery, and if the government is not happy with the type of reporting coming from that press gallery they should look to themselves rather than to any device which could be construed as seeking to replace that free press in terms of their appraisal of the government's conduct. That should be the answer, not the utilization of public funds to set up some kind of internal propaganda machine, whether it be of the electronic variety or of the newspaper or press release variety in terms of shoring up the government's image.

I wanted to make that point, Mr. Chairman, and move on to lottery funds. In my riding I have very actively assisted a variety of organizations seeking lottery grants for functions in the constituency. I have found, contrary to the suggestion by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), that there appear to be inconsistent criteria for the approval of lottery funds. I am not alone, Mr. Chairman. My constituents find inconsistent criteria. I have a letter from Mr. Chris Nelson, director of the parks and recreation branch for the regional district of North Okanagan, and I shall read it.

"Dear Mr. King:

"At the last meeting of the Fortune Parks and Recreation Committee, Enderby and area, a discussion arose regarding the system of approvals for lottery grant applications. The committee is concerned with the inconsistencies in the approval procedures. For example, earlier this year, an application for funding assistance to build a public washroom- concession facility was sent by the Grindrod Recreation Commission to the lotteries branch. Their application was refused, as it did not meet the necessary requirements. Yet in looking over other approved projects throughout the province, we feel the Grindrod application should certainly have been considered for

[ Page 8709 ]

funding. This is just one example of the fluctuations in the approval procedures of the lotteries branch.

"I have enclosed a copy of the letter turning down the Grindrod application explaining to apply through the RFAP program. Also enclosed is a copy of approved projects throughout the province that come under the same criteria. An application to RFAP is now under consideration.

"Again, the committee is very concerned over the lottery grants and the approval procedures, and feels that you should be aware of these inconsistencies. Thank you for your consideration in this matter."

They attach a letter from Mr. Ray Orchard, dated July 28, 1981, where he says in part:

"Re washroom and concession facilities, the Lottery Fund does not normally assist projects that are eligible for consideration from other government agencies."

Fair enough. Why then did the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ, Grand Forks — renovations to community centre — qualify for $50,000? Why then did Maple Ridge Amateur Athletic Association — field lighting — qualify for $29,545? Why did branch 24, Senior Citizens Association of B.C., Chilliwack purchase a building and qualify for a grant to the tune of $25,000? Why did the Welsh Society of Vancouver — hall renovations — quality for $32,066? Why did Langley Family Services Association qualify to receive $50,500 for purchase of a building? Why did the Wallachin Soldiers Memorial Hall Society — hall repair and renovations — qualify for $10,000? Why did the corporation of the district of Burnaby — resurfacing Swangard Stadium track — qualify to the tune of $280,000? Why did the Saturna Women's Service Club, Saturna Island — hall and kitchen roof — qualify to the tune of $6,300? The Kinsmen Club of Mackenzie constructs a community centre — $35,000. The Greater Victoria Horseshoe Club facility — $18,529.

Mr. Chairman, I am not disputing any of these other applications that were approved. They were undoubtedly all for worthwhile, well-justified causes. But the point is, as my constituent has pointed out, why the inconsistency? The excuse given to the Grindrod grant applicants was that they would not qualify if they would normally be eligible for a grant otherwise. The ones I have read out to the minister he will readily recognize would qualify for a grant under the Community Recreational Facilities Licensing Fund — one third sharing of up to $1 million.

As the ombudsman has stated, the minister has taken too much discretion unto himself. The criteria are fuzzy, to say the least, and give reason to suspect that partisan politics is playing a part in the determination of these grant approvals. I would appreciate it very much if the Provincial Secretary, when he answers the many questions put to him, would provide some rational explanation so that I might in turn tell my constituents whether or not there is a coherent and consistent policy, and criteria, for the approval of lottery fund grants in British Columbia. The people in British Columbia deserve that assurance; they deserve an explanation. Certainly I hope that the minister will respond in a serious way to these apparent inconsistencies that my constituents have pointed out. I would appreciate that very much.

MRS. DAILLY: As we've been dealing with one particular aspect, could the minister answer some of these questions before we move on to other subjects?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't know where members want me to commence; we've been covering a pretty broad area. Shall I deal initially with lottery applications?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We' ve canvassed this subject many times before. There is a specific list of guidelines, most of which refer to normal circumstances of an application. I think the member who just took his seat referred to an application that said: "Lottery grant applications are not normally approved where an application is normally funded under an existing government program." That's not the purpose of lotteries; it is to provide discretionary funds where there is a need at that time, depending on the priority of the item. These guidelines are merely for the normal edification of the person applying.

In terms of the specific matter raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), I don't have those applications before me. He quoted from a letter from the director of the lottery grants department, Mr. Orchard, who responded to this, and I invite him to appeal that case to me. It may be obsolete now. Many of these applications reach my attention because a member intercedes, or some other person appeals the original refusal of a lottery grant under the existing guidelines.

Reference has been made to the ombudsman's complaint that no advisory committee determines lottery applications. Why don't we have one? We have canvassed this many times before. The ombudsman, in fact, made no criticism in his report of the individual administration of any existing grant. He criticized certain aspects that have since been addressed. Some of them have been remedied in terms of more specific guidelines right on the application form. We have responded to the appointment of certain requests of the ombudsman. However, he wanted an advisory agency to determine lottery grants, and that is not something this government could support. You would have to create a bureaucracy, a delay in terms of approving lottery grants.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't think the people of this province would want to see another staff bureaucracy set up to determine the distribution of a straightforward matter such as lottery grants. It's a responsibility of the minister, like many other funding arrangements in government. Every minister in this government has that kind of responsibility.

I'd like to get back to the question raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) on the Enderby Parks branch washroom facility. I don't have the details, but if he would supply them to me I'd be glad to review the matter, asI've done many times. A great many of the approvals for lottery applications which I attend with lottery branch staff have to do with applications originally refused. They are reviewed where a person feels other circumstances are involved in the case.

We sit here and talk about the political partisanship of lottery grants, citing figures, such as those from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), to try to demonstrate how

[ Page 8710 ]

unfair the distribution of lotteries is. We can only respond to applications received. There are constituencies in this province where there never appears to be a need or an application for a lottery grant; there are others where there are a lot, many of which cannot be approved. We can only approve lottery funding according to the amount of funds available. In discretionary grants under lottery funds, there is about $6 million to $7 million per year available for individual grants. Some are for $100 or $200 for travel assistance; others are for many thousands of dollars for larger undertakings. We recently offered to finance construction of child-care facilities in this province. We have received a number of applications for construction of day-care centres, and currently there is no program within government. We've allocated certain funds for the year to those people who applied, and we're awaiting responses to that offer. We've written to the organizations that applied. It's not possible to fund the construction of all needs for day-care centres in this province. However, through the lotteries branch we've addressed those applications, many of which have been refused, and asked if they want to retender them. We would consider funding up to the amount we are prepared to set aside for that purpose.

I put that forward as an example of the discretion which can be used to address a program that currently doesn't exist. We've made public, on a quarterly basis, the complete and detailed disclosure of lotteries grants. Notwithstanding the concerns of members, I want to assure you it's only a case of responding to a demand from constituencies across the province.

In relation to the last question, I'm advised that the application for the Grindrod Recreation Park washroom concession development was approved under the RFAP program in October 1981.

I have a few brief comments regarding the Government Production Centre and the amount of money supposedly under this massive ministry for advertising and control of all advertising, and the agency of record problem. The new policy on agency of record, by which one agency is responsible for the placing of all advertising, is going to save this government some $600,000 over one year, or 10 percent of the cost of ads. That's the reason this system has been developed. It's not unusual. The national government, a number of other provinces and major corporations in Canada now use the single-agency-of-record method to develop their placement of advertising on a more efficient and uniform basis.

Across all ministries there is, under code 40, an allocation of $22 million in the current year's budget for advertising and publications. The greater part of that amount is represented in a variety of government publications, including the listing of public service jobs and the distribution of material required by ministries. Of the $22 million, I think only $7 million could be classified as straightforward advertising placed through the media, representing an increase of about 10 percent over last year for the total for advertising and publications.

Last year and this year we had a lot of discussion on the Government Production Centre, this terrible agency which is concocting material and helping ministers to look better, and so on. In fact, the Government Production Centre produces completely internal documents required by the mandates of the various ministries. I'll just cite a few examples of productions completed in 1981-82.

For the Ministry of Agriculture, a special information program for beef producers. Consumer and Corporate Affairs: a film on the rentalsman, 28 minutes; techniques used in conducting disputes and hearings are demonstrated. Ministry of Health: the "Senior Chef" series, 28 minutes; a cooking series devoted to nutrition for seniors. Ministry of Health: "Corporate Cup," an overview of the corporate cup track and field fitness through fun. Ministry of Health: "Reach Out," 26 minutes; an overview of the Penticton and district retirement complex.

I have here a complete list of last year's productions. Human Resources: child abuse and neglect, 30 minutes; discussion of techniques used by social workers with their clients. Human Resources: "Council of the Eighties," 30 minutes; interviewing. The rehabilitation support services program; a training program explaining rehab support services and individual opportunities program. Ministry of Health: "Alive and Well" a series on health care issues with an emphasis on prevention. I could go on into this year's productions to cite three or four of them. Human Resources: an overview of the ministry is being developed for staff orientation. Family and children's services: an in-depth study of this Human Resources division for staff orientation. Human Resources income assistance: staff orientation. These are productions being developed at this stage.

The question is continually raised as to the measures taken between January and March 1981, in terms of addressing themselves to the fact that the production centre was advised by the comptroller that there were not sufficient funds left to carry out the productions which had been initiated. As is well known in this House and elsewhere, measures had to be taken by that centre and by government information program directors to bring the thing back to scale in terms of living within the amount voted by this Legislature for that centre. There's nothing innocuous or hidden in terms of the meaning; no partisanship involved in why this had to happen. They were advised by the comptroller in January that they simply were not able to receive any more funds unless they had further funds repaid from ministries.

A tremendous change was made in their accounting and accountability between then and the end of their production year, because they couldn't get further funds through the comptroller — which I commend them for. They had to take the necessary actions, in terms of people who were on contract, in order to respond to the budgetary measures adopted by the comptroller through this ministry.

MR. BARBER: The minister answered questions I did not ask. He provided no answers to the questions I did ask. I will reiterate.

I asked what became of the five-camera mobile unit costing $235,000, which, as of six months ago, had never even been used. I asked about the Social Credit media officer, appointed to Mr. Heal's office and seconded to Mrs. White's office; her name is Pacholzuk. I asked whether or not she was still there. I remind the minister that the order-in-council which appointed her in the first place designated that she would have to act "in a confidential capacity to the Premier." I asked what business could be conducted by a neutral and non-partisan Government Production Centre that would require the services of such a person.

I asked, as well, for him to justify the $14,000 that was wasted on the Sedawie script for a program that was never

[ Page 8711 ]

filmed, called "TV or Not TV," which includes the following advice:

"Television appearances are important. Learn to use television, not be used by television. The majority of people today look to television for their news. Print is far behind. They form their opinions not so much by what they hear as what they see. Right or wrong, style is more important than substance when it comes to TV. First impressions are most important, so let's begin with how you look."

I asked the minister to justify and defend this expenditure of $14,000 on a script like this for the Government Production Centre.

I asked the minister to justify and defend the $9,000 that was wasted because of the political interference of the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who ordered up a television show on the Socred view of the constitution debate. Nine thousand dollars later, all that money having been wasted on preproduction, the government was getting caught in its dealings with Hollywood North, and the film was never actually produced. Nonetheless, the money was spent, in the amount of $9,000.

The minister read into the record a list of films which the Government Production Centre has made for Health, Agriculture and other agencies of the government. We do not dispute the legitimacy or purpose of those films. They are excellent efforts. "Senior Chef" is a terrific production. I'm glad that seniors in my riding watch it, because they pay better attention thereby to their own diets and to the problem of maintaining good diet and health on the restricted incomes which they suffer under Social Credit. That's a good series, and we didn't complain about that. By the way, we didn't even ask about that.

What we did ask about was Pacholzuk, and her obvious partisanship, and if she is still there. We asked about the $235,000 for the mobile camera. Has it been used? If so, for what purposes? We asked about the waste of $14,000 on the Sedawie script telling cabinet ministers how to look better. We asked about $9,000 wasted on Mrs. McCarthy's plan to brainwash the people of British Columbia with the Socred view of the constitution debate. Those are the questions I actually asked. The ones the minister answered I never asked at all. I'd like to try again. I'd like him to answer this time the questions that I actually did put to him, starting with the $235,000 on the mobile camera.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I apologize for not responding to some of those questions earlier. There was quite a wide and broad selection of questions that came across the House.

Firstly, Lori Pacholzuk. This person's appointment to the production centre was a temporary one. Her duties were to prepare an information kit for the use of client ministries, in terms of how to use the production centre. She had absolutely no involvement in the planning or selection of programs. She is now assisting in the Robson Square office of government information programs as a public information officer.

You asked about the five-camera mobile unit. I'm advised in one instance use would have been made of it in the opening of the House or other opportunities where the House would be viewed by camera. It's very suitable for that purpose, but at the moment it is on loan to BCIT, who I understand are quite interested in acquiring it.

MR. BARBER: I also asked the minister to explain and justify the $14,000 spent when Norman and Gayle Sedawie produced a script that told cabinet ministers how to look good on TV. Can you explain that? Can you justify that? I ask him as well to explain and justify the expenditure of $9,000 caused by the Deputy Premier when she ordered up a show on the Socred view of the constitution debate, known as "A Constitution Show," and I read into the record the memo from Mrs. White which authenticates the charge we make that this film was actually planned. I also have a copy of the preproduction budget for that, which I would be happy to show the minister if he doesn't have it himself. I'd like him to explain and justify those two expenditures — $14,000 for the Sedawies and $9,000 for McCarthy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you justify Gary Lauk?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll remind the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and also the first member for Victoria that it is unparliamentary to use a member's given name.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't think I can help the member with some of those questions. He has raised continually the efforts by the government, through the media, to get across its views on the constitution, a very long-standing and complicated debate, difficult for citizens to follow and understand what the British Columbia position was. Obviously, very many considerations were given to approach this. As a matter of fact, to show you the difficulty in it, it's hard for me to understand the position on the constitution advanced by the member for Vancouver East. Not many people know what he thinks about that.

I commend and would support the efforts by the government to develop programs to explain that policy — whatever those efforts were to explain it — because there was debate on that subject which took place over a long period of time.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the members want to hear the answer to this, somehow.

In any event, you'll remember that the Premier went on provincial television to answer a number of questions on that subject and go over the complete topic in the full context. That was all a part of the debate that took place at that time.

MR. BARBER: The minister's reply is evasive, absurd and basically irresponsible. Nine thousand dollars was wasted because the Deputy Premier requested that the Government Production Centre put together a propaganda hour for Social Credit regarding the constitution. Nine thousand dollars wasted later, there was no TV show. The money was misspent for no value at all. If the government really believes that it's entitled to use taxpayers money to propagate its own weird views of the Canadian constitution, at least you'd think a television program might have materialized. They didn't even go that far, because they knew they couldn't get away with it. But they wasted $9,000, thanks to the Deputy Premier.

The Provincial Secretary is also evasive because I have now asked four times and he has yet to reply even once to my question about how he justifies $14,000 given to the Sedawies by their friend Doug Heal to prepare a TV script to tell

[ Page 8712 ]

cabinet ministers to keep their flies up and their trousers down. How can you possibly justify that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, do we have to listen to this balderdash?

MR. BARBER: You don't have to listen to it; you can leave. He has to listen because he's responsible for that waste. We think he has to reply, because his ministry is responsible for that waste. If you want to see the script, you can. In your case, maybe you don't need it. In the case of other of your colleagues, they clearly do; their personal images are appalling.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will please come to order. I'll ask all hon. members to address the estimates before us. The first member for Victoria continues, uninterrupted.

MR. BARBER: At one point in the script, purportedly a legitimate public expenditure — in fact completely unethical; Heal made a present to the Sedawies courtesy of the taxpayer — the following information is obtained: "Dress according to your position. Don't be flashy, but don't be too casual." Cabinet ministers are then told: "Avoid white; avoid black, or this can happen." Then they have a picture of a man in a black suit, standing in front of a black drape. "Avoid vivid colours. Men look best in varying shades of grey, browns or the darker blues, with pastel or off-white shirts and ties with subtle pattern. It is very important that women dress according to their occupation. There is a danger that a sexy outfit may be misunderstood by the audience."

What is this trash doing in a script prepared for the Government Production Centre? What is this junk that you have asked us to pay for? If the Socreds want to take "How to Look Pretty on TV" lessons, let them do so at their own expense. This junk should never have been paid for by the taxpayers. This junk is an utterly improper expenditure of public funds. Obviously even the Socreds would never pay for it. Their own party, tennis-shoed and blue-rinsed, would never have approved this nonsense, so they were never even asked. Who did pay for it? The taxpayers, as usual, under the regime of Social Credit doing business as usual, prostituting an otherwise legitimate government purpose for the sordid political purpose of Social Credit — in this case, telling cabinet ministers how to look good.

To reiterate and conclude, when the Government Production Centre makes films about highway safety or infant development, that's good stuff. We support it, and we will vote in favour of an appropriation to continue to support it. We have never taken objection to that. We have not before, we do not today, and we will not in the future. Those are purposeful, rational and useful public expenditures. But this trash, which the minister hasn't even attempted to justify, was never a proper expenditure in the first place. I reiterate my demand that you send this bill to Bernie Smith, and let Mr. Smith take a collection among the Socreds in cabinet — there are 21 of them; half of them are millionaires anyway — and let the millionaires in cabinet pay the $14,000 that you want the taxpayers to pay the Sedawies. It's an expenditure, by the way, which has unfortunately already taken place.

It's not too late for the Socreds in cabinet to reimburse the Crown for the waste of money which they caused through this ridiculous, insupportable and unjustifiable television script called "TV or Not TV." That was our question. We know what the minister's answer is. That answer isn't good enough.

MR. MITCHELL: I have three particular topics that I would like to discuss with the minister. One of them is the Green Paper he has put out on the pension. I sincerely recommend that the government make an extensive study on pensions. I believe that the important part that we must realize.... We are in a society today that is not only gravely affected by economic problems, depressions and no jobs, but by new technology that is making so many of our jobs in the workforce today redundant. It has been estimated by many people who have studied it that jobs that are here today will no longer be here seven years from now.

I think it's so important that studies be made into the complete portability of all pensions; they should be completely portable and indexed. I'm not going to get into the detailed methods of financing any particular program. This is a program that I believe not only this House but also technicians and the bureaucracy should study. I seriously believe we should establish a legislative committee that will tour the province and study pensions for society and for those in the workforce who are not tied into government jobs, hospitals, school boards or some of the larger companies; for the true workforce out there that moves from job to job and works in different types of industries and is part of the people who build British Columbia. These are the ones who can no longer go through a lifetime of hard work to end up on a minimum pension. They have equal rights to a full, proper, indexed pension. That's something they can build as they go through their work life.

I strongly recommend to the minister that he give consideration to a legislative committee to study this, to go out into the community, to the trade union movement, the business communities — the employers — to find out what their views and proposals are, to find out what effect it is having in the workforce, because we have drifted.... I say we have drifted because our society has not provided pensions like the ones of those who are organized, those who are in steady employ, like government or MLAs, and who have managed to look after for themselves. I think this is something that we should be looking at.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would like get some confirmation or answers from the minister on a proposal that he and I have shared a lot of discussion and letters on, dealing with the development of the Lampson Street school in the township of Esquimalt into a Victoria cultural centre. I know the minister has heard this many times, but for the benefit for the House, in 1979 right in the midst of a provincial election I was invited to a meeting at the Lampson Street school which the minister attended as a member of the cabinet. Mr. Sam Bawlf, who was also a cabinet minister of the Social Credit government, and my predecessor, the Social Credit MLA for Esquimalt, also attended. We met with a large group of citizens from many cultural and recreational organizations who were told in very glowing terms what a wonderful building the school was — at the present time it had been shut down by the school board — and that it could be made into an excellent cultural centre for groups in greater Victoria. After my election I approached the minister and other members of the cabinet to find out where the funding was going to come

[ Page 8713 ]

from. Mr. Sam Bawlf had led the majority of those in attendance to believe it was available.

Three years later, after a fair exchange of correspondence, we have yet to come up with where the funds are going to come from, except a letter that I received from the minister dated, June 11, 1982. It was in response to another letter that I'd sent to the minister. This is one of the questions that I would like the minister, if he could, to give some further explanation on, because many people in the community are seriously concerned about the need for the building, but the last paragraph of the minister's letter says: "As you know, we are not considering any RFAP applications in this fiscal year, under which program it is possible the Lampson Street school project might otherwise have been eligible." I believe RFAP means recreational facilities assistance plan. Is it possible that the government, in the short period they will be in, have any intention of making funds available under that particular program? If so, what kind of participation can the groups make? I know the Heritage Trust has supplied certain moneys to draw up plans. There's been a lot of work involved in this up to this point. I think what they would really like to know is what money is possibly available and how it can be pried out of the government.

The third item I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is that a particular problem keeps cropping up in my area. I raised it in April of last year in a question to the present minister and to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). It has to do with the property commonly known in the Metchosin area as the provincial juvenile correction camp site. At that time there was a very strong rumour throughout the community that a certain group was attempting to acquire a large acreage for a subdivision of some type. There were stories that a trade was being arranged by the government for an additional site. At that time, in answer to my question, the minister stated that the particular land was not declared surplus and that there were no negotiations taking place on behalf of the government or the Attorney-General's ministry for this particular property. He further stated that Happy Valley Timber was interested in the property, but that B.C. Buildings Corporation were not negotiating on that sale at the time.

I would like to go over the background of this particular piece of property and the company that was involved in the negotiations. I would like to stress right now that I am not taking the side of the company, and I am not necessarily attacking the government. I'm trying to bring to the attention of this House that because of these rumours and stories that have developed over this last two or three years there is uncertainty in the community over what may take place, and that is causing great concern to the residents.

From my digging and the large number of papers that I keep receiving, it would appear that in November 1978 Happy Valley Timber contacted a certain planner in the greater Victoria area to put together a package on what would be the best use of the particular 335 acres that they held. The consultant studied it. I wouldn't say that he was a very competent consultant, but he studied the general area and the property they had. At that time it was decided that if they could acquire a larger number of acres in that area — it was undeveloped at that time — they would have a better chance to put in a more comprehensive residential and recreational development.

This group met with members of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Housing, and the Ministry of Attorney-General, or so I'm led to believe. I'm also led to believe that they met with members of this minister's department. I know you'd rule me out of order if I said there were any deals or promises made, so I won't, but I am going to say that those within the company who approached all four ministries were left with an understanding that if they purchased the old Dunhill property from the Minister of Housing, the 216 acres that the government wished to unload.... At that time I was trying to open it for mobile-home parks or housing of some type, but the minister decided he would sell it. But they were left with the understanding that if they got that and purchased some other private property, consideration would be made to exchange the 105 acres owned by the minister and presently being occupied by the juvenile correction camp. They say there was an understanding. I sincerely believe there was an understanding, because on the strength of that understanding they went out and spent $2.5 million to $3.5 million.

I am not here to promote any organization. What I'm trying to get across to the government is that if there are any major programs in that area, they should be brought out in the open. The public should be consulted. In spite of what certain developers may feel, there are community plans and there are locally elected people who have an obligation to listen to and receive input from the community. I believe Happy Valley Timber Ltd. met with the capital regional board, the planning board and the regional directors at that time, who were elected, and from information that has been shared with me I believe that they did in a lot of ways cover the basis of the development. The only thing they didn't cover was the public involvement in the change that it may bring to that particular community. As I brought out in the House under the Minister of Highways' (Hon. Mr. Fraser's) estimates, there was an extension of Millstream Road, again through a large area of undeveloped land. At that time the community that lived around that property wanted to know what was going on; they wanted some consultation with the government; they wanted to talk to the engineers. I attempted to get a public meeting, to bring it out in the open, to get engineers from the capital region and from the Ministry of Highways, and spokesmen from the community groups, to get the proper input about what type of development is going to take place in the Western Community.

The Western Community is the largest unincorporated area, and any development that drops into that particular area without planning will be a disaster. The disaster that took place because there was no consultation by the Ministry of Highways about the Millstream extension is now causing a lot of concern. In fact, Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Highways said, because there was no discussion two of the members who were involved in that as regional directors lost the election. I see the Metchosin area, where this development may take place, where land is being purchased, where companies have expended large sums of money — and to me $3 million, $4 million or $5 million are still large sums of money.... If promises have been made on this land.... I'll retract the word "promises," but if understandings have been given that there is a possibility that this development may take place in the Western Community, the public should be consulted.

I know there has been property bought, and it has been offered to be traded with the BCBC: up until January 6 of this year I've been led to believe that another proposal was made for some exchange of land. I believe on March 30 another

[ Page 8714 ]

draft letter of intent was submitted to BCBC for exchange of property. As I say, I'm not saying that it's right or wrong that the property should be developed in the manner that is proposed, but I do say, Mr. Minister, that before any firm commitments are given to anyone who is prepared to put up that type of money, there should be an open understanding with the government, the community and the taxpayers — by all those who are elected — of what is in store and what changes the various ministries are prepared to agree to. I think this is not only in this one particular area of Metchosin or in one particular area of Langford and Colwood, but I think that in general we need a more open, consultative type of government to put a stop to these rumours and stories that permeate the community before they start, to bring it to the people's attention, to put a freeze on all the land if there is any large proposal and say: "This is what has been proposed." Bring it out in the open so that the community, the engineers, the planners and the government — those who own the land — will understand what is taking place.

I believe that it's important that this approach be made in the Western Community, because we lack the elected councils and mayors that a lot of municipalities have. The power of political persuasion or political connections that take place in unorganized areas cause more concerns to the community than I believe the government realizes. They aren't interested in taking the time to find out what the community wants and what developers have proposed, or in making sure that any development or proposal is best for the community. I know I'm one of the few voices representing that area at the provincial level. The change in regional directors every two years causes a lot of problems with developers and a lot of problems, I guess, with the government. I think that if the government has any serious proposals they should bring them out, put a freeze on the land and allow the developers, the community and everyone else to get involved and to find out what's taking place.

I would ask the minister if he could advise the residents of the Metchosin area and of Colwood if there are any proposals being negotiated at this time for a large residential housing and recreational development. If there are, and if there is a viable proposal for this, give serious consideration to announcing it and opening it up so we all know what is going to take place when, and what may happen.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I was glad to hear the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's interest in the pension paper. He mentioned a suggestion that there should be a legislative committee. These are all possibilities for the future after we've gone through a period of input and discussion. There'll be meetings held across the province, and that is always a future possibility. No decision has been made on that particular point.

He mentioned a topic we've discussed a number of times before: the Esquimalt cultural group proposal for the Lampson Street school received a planning grant from the Heritage Trust some time ago. He referred to the recreational facilities grant, and whether funds might be available there in the future. As you know, there have been no funds approved under that program for over six months now, and that was the way in which I responded to the member in June. I could only say to his question that this is a proposal to use a heritage building for recreational purposes, which is really quite unusual in terms of the use of a former public building. I'm not trying to negate that; it's just that it's a different kind of proposal, it being a heritage building. I can only say that we will consider it if and when the recreational facilities assistance program is reinitiated, but that program is under a moratorium now until at least the end of March 1983.

The last point he was discussing was the Metchosin area, the future site of the juvenile detention unit, and there have been a lot of meetings take place between Happy Valley Timber and the officials of the Buildings Corporation. I was visited some weeks ago by a committee from the timber company, who were putting forward the residential proposal, and satisfied myself — and have so advised the principals of that company — that the corporation's proposal, after examining alternative sites to the acreage which they hold in that area, part of which is for the purpose of that detention centre and part for other purposes, is still valid. The alternative sites put forward by Happy Valley and other people had other problems associated with them. The present site is still considered by the Buildings Corporation as being the most efficient, cost-effective place to develop that whenever the project does proceed.

It was not possible, I think it's fair to say, to develop a trade with the Happy Valley people to facilitate development exactly where they wanted to do it. They wanted to operate an alternative site so that the Buildings Corporation could accept it in exchange for this acreage in Metchosin. That's the only answer I can give you. I wrote to the Happy Valley people last month to this effect.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd just like to go further on two proposals. In his last letter to me, the minister mentioned the possibility that the funds for the Lampson Street school could come from the RFAP. The grants for the planning did come from the heritage building. It's not only the plans; it's what we can look forward to down the road. In all the inquiries that have been made by members of the cultural groups — and it's the greater Victoria cultural group; it's not just the Esquimalt group, but the whole area; it's their proposal — this was the first time that we had any possible information that the money may come from that particular fund. I believe they appreciate the particular money from the Heritage Trust Fund that went into the planning.

Getting back to Happy Valley, if that particular proposal has been made or is being considered and there is an exchange of property, I say to you, Mr. Minister, that this whole proposal should come out in the open. There can be some local input from the community — for instance, do they want that type of proposal in that area? — before the land is either rezoned or before you go to the expense of a proposal to take the land out of the ALR. All these things do affect the community. In my little way, I have tried to bring it out in the open and talk to them and ask them what their proposals are. Make it so the public can hear what you're saying before any more funds are expended. What is the best use for that land? What is the best use within the community, and what will be accepted by the community? That's all I'm asking. If you can, Mr. Minister, get it out into the open so everyone knows what is going to take place before we ruin it, as they did with the Millstream extension in the Langford-Colwood area.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, I think the obligation to air that matter really lies between the

[ Page 8715 ]

community and the applicants for a residential proposal, which in this case is Happy Valley Timber. They propose a development in the area, and I think the disclosure of that and consideration of it lies with the regional district and in the local area. I don't follow your reasoning in asking the Buildings Corporation to make a public hearing available or arrangements for that purpose. The responsibility lies between the applicant and the local community.

MR. MITCHELL: I just have one more question. What I'm trying to explain is that up until now the purchase of property has been through the Ministry of Housing, with consultations with other ministries. Everything has been very secretive, and rumours have come out from different sources. I agree with you 100 percent that the proposal should come from the developer, but if the community seems to feel that the 105 acres owned by BCBC.... To say: "Fine, we'll put that on hold; there will be no other trade, and it won't be used for something else...." Does the minister or the government feel that this particular proposal should be considered? That's all I'm asking. Maybe he could advise this group, and before any deal is made receive some community input — openly, publicly and above board.

MS. BROWN: I just want to ask the minister a couple of questions about women in the public service. I have the March 1981 statistics, Mr. Chairman, and I notice the minister is consulting. I cannot perceive any shift at all in terms of women moving out of the administrative and clerical ghettos into any of the higher administrative jobs. When I compare them to the 1979 printout — and prior to that, which I also have — it seems that we're not making any progress at all. I wonder if the minister can assure me that the information on the March 31, 1981 printout is old information and that he could give me some statistics from the March 31, 1982 one — which I'm sure he must have — that would indicate that there has been a shift. I recognize that the number of women employed in the civil service is still approximately 55 percent, and that of this number, according to this printout, 76 percent make less than $18,000 a year, whereas 33.4 percent of the males make less than $18,000 a year. When you get over the $25,000 category, the women almost disappear. The only reason I'm asking this is that I know the minister goes on at great length about pensions. As you know, pensions are tied to your salary. If we find that women are concentrated in the poor-paying jobs, how can they benefit when they retire in terms of their pensions? Obviously they're going to end up with inadequate pensions, we're going to see the poverty they lived with while working entrenched, and in their old age they're going to continue to be poor.

The other question I wanted to deal with with the minister is that I notice that about 72 percent of the women in the public service are concentrated in Health, Human Resources and the Attorney-General's and the Provincial Secretary's ministries. I also notice that one of the worst ministries in terms of the discrepancy in salaries is the minister's own ministry, that of the Provincial Secretary. For example, I notice that 75 percent of the women in his ministry are in the clerical and administrative component. I also notice that of all the women employed in his ministry, 67.6 percent earn about $15,000, as compared to only 11.8 percent of the men. When we get into the upper echelons, where the deputy ministers, heads of departments, etc. are, the women actually, not virtually, disappear. This is a minister who has the equal opportunities committee and everything working under his jurisdiction, and who is going to be doing great things for women. I've been looking at these statistics since 1978, and I haven't been able to identify a shift. I wonder if the minister would give me the latest statistics which would show that there was a shift. Just as an aside, I'd like to add that the other really serious culprit is the Ministry of Labour, and they're supposed to have a deputy minister responsible for women's affairs. Their statistics are even more appalling than the statistics of the Provincial Secretary.

While the Provincial Secretary is getting those figures for me. I wonder if I....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You're not getting the figures for me?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't have them. You asked for those up to March 31, 1982. I'll tell you in a minute.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I need March 1982.

I wonder if he could tell me what happened to the request for some funding under the First Citizens Fund from a Mr. Peter Charlie for a welding business to be established on the Chehalis reserve. Originally this was turned down because Mr. Charlie was told that he did not have the support of any of the Indian community. It said on April 27 that the application had been rejected as there was no indication of community support for his project. I have a carbon copy of a letter which was sent along with the application showing that he did have support, that the Indian Homemakers Association of British Columbia did send a letter in support. I wonder if he could tell me what's happened to that.

I also want to raise the McPherson Park Junior Secondary School kids who worked on the Harrison-Lillooet Goldrush Trail from Port Douglas to 29 Mile House at Lillooet Lake. They've been trying, through every ministry, to get some funding to protect that trail. I raised this under the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I notice that they are applying for a heritage designation, and are applying to the Provincial Secretary to use his good offices to have all the land within 100 feet of the trail frozen, and for funding to assist in the preservation of that trail. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the status of that is.

Last year, I guess it was, the Handicapped Action Committee — that's what they call themselves; they're the disabled members of our community — issued a request to the government asking for a number of changes. One of the things they pointed out was that since 5 percent of the people who are eligible to work in the province are disabled, they thought that the provincial government should set an example by hiring disabled workers, and that, in fact, approximately 5 percent of its workforce should consist of disabled workers. They pointed out that if the government did that, it would have a workforce of 2,500 people; but in reality there were only 170 disabled people employed by the provincial government as of March 1981. I'm wondering if the minister would bring me up to date on those statistics. Has the government improved its showing in this area? Are you any closer to that 5 percent of the workforce? Are you any closer to that 2,500 figure that we're looking for? If the minister would respond very quickly to those questions, I would appreciate it.

[ Page 8716 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: First of all, Mr. Chairman, on the matter of the equal opportunities program, there are a number of initiatives that the member would be aware of that have been directed to promotional opportunities for various sectors of the public service. She asked for the latest figures of March 31. I'm afraid I don't have those today, but I'll have them soon, and will be glad to make them available to her. I think she already has the March 31, 1981 ones...

MS. BROWN: Yes, I have those.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...which showed some mild improvement in women's participation over the previous year. We don't have those figures just yet, but we'll have them in the near future.

You referred also to the First Citizens Fund and the application of Peter Charlie to do with his welding business. I'm afraid I can't respond to that right here. I don't have that information, but once again, I can write you very shortly. You wanted to know what the reason was for rejecting it on the basis of no community support. I presume the committee advised against it on that basis.

MS. BROWN: There is a letter attached to it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, I understand what you said. So I will advise you as soon as I get that information.

The Harrison-Lillooet trail. I don't have that information here in the House either. It has to do with a request for funding, as you described it, for a trail; but primarily their wish is to have a heritage designation for the trail. Currently we don't have legislation which provides for heritage designation outside a municipality — I'll just see if I'm correct in stating that.... So once again I'm afraid I'll have to get back to you in terms of the application for heritage designation. I don't have that file here in the committee.

MS. BROWN: Disabled workers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think your request was for more recent statistics on our ability to hire disabled.

MS. BROWN: No, not your ability; your hiring of disabled.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's what I'm talking about. You want some statistics on hiring of them. I'll get those for you.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the order-in-council appointing Derril Warren as commissioner for the purpose of redistribution. In your first paragraph in that order-in-council you say that he is to consider all matters which may provide equitable and effective representation in the Legislative Assembly based upon geography, and so on and so forth. Then it goes on to say: "...and make his recommendations on the basis of the Legislative Assembly being comprised of no fewer than 57 and no more than 71 members."

If the order-in-council had stopped there, we could have had a reasonably good redistribution of the province. But no, the order-in-council goes on and says: "...and further, that in formulating the recommendations to be contained in the report, the commissioner may (1) consider additional representation for existing electoral districts based upon population, geography..." and so on. So what they're doing there is saying that any changes have to be within existing electoral districts, and presumably no electoral district will be changed as far as boundaries are concerned. Representation can be added within an existing boundary, and when that is added the boundaries are not changed. But it can only work within existing boundaries of electoral districts.

Secondly, he is to consider the subdivision of any multiple-member electoral district that warrants representation by more than two members. In other words, the commissioner is basically told that he cannot recommend the breaking down of a two-member riding into two separate entities. He can only subdivide an electoral district if there are more than two members there. Presumably, only in Surrey would it be possible to designate another subdivision of the district. And thirdly, it says that he may make further recommendations that he deems appropriate.

The problem here is that although it's not a directive as such, if it isn't a directive, it's certainly a very strong hint to the commissioner as to what he can and can't do to get fair representation in the province. In other words, there's no provision here, the way I read this order-in-council, for the removal of Gracie's Finger, as an example. This can't be done. If the order-in-council is stopped after the second paragraph, then the commissioner would be free to divide the province and do a proper redistribution. But here we have a case where the commissioner's hands are completely tied. I'd suggest to the minister that he consider a new order-in-council so this commissioner can do a proper job on redistribution.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought the minister would answer. That's a very serious question posed by the member for Burnaby. However, I hope the minister will choose to answer it.

I have to break the continuity of this debate and move back to the First Citizens Fund. I bet the minister knows what I want to talk about: the blocking of $100,000 that was approved by the First Citizens Fund committee, and blocked directly by the minister.

Would you believe that because that minister and government blocked $100,000 unanimously okayed by the First Citizens Fund, another $250,000 was not then forthcoming from the federal government for a project at Bella Bella on Campbell Island. I'd like to know from the minister where he gets the authority to block that $350,000 — because that was the total amount of money involved — arbitrarily in his office after a unanimous decision by the First Citizens Fund. What's the point of having a First Citizens committee?

Would you believe, further to this, that that government forwarded $350,000 to another group, a small community with less than 50 people, 26 voters? They sent them $350,000 for road construction to their airport. I'm not opposed to private initiative building airports. Most of the projects in my riding took place under private initiative without help from any government. But I suspect that this government has close ties with certain people: contractors and owners of the resorts in the area. They sent them the $250,000, and from sheer discrimination against the native Indian people of this province, blocked that $100,000 from the First Citizens committee. Can you believe it? I can barely believe it. I

[ Page 8717 ]

honestly cannot believe it. If you want to think that the native Indian people of this province will forget about that in the next election campaign, I'd like that minister to think again, because we'll remind those Indian bands in the province that forget this government's sheer act of discrimination against native Indian people in this province. I guarantee you that we will remind them.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) not to interrupt, and if he would to please do so from his own seat.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In response to the member from Burnaby, to do with the Warren commission, as I read the order there is certainly a request to the commissioner to perform certain functions or duties — to address himself to the size and population of the constituencies — but he is not restricted by that order from amending boundaries if he chooses to do so.

I'll go on further to the member who just took his seat regarding the First Citizens Fund and the topic we've had in this House in recent weeks. I categorically deny the suggestion by the member that there was a case here of favouritism on behalf of locals and so on. He is well aware of the circumstances here. There was an existing airport on Denny Island, and for the First Citizens Fund to approve major funding for a brand new airport within a mile of that location would be irresponsible. The member is well aware that there is no plausible reason why there should be two airports within a mile of each other in circumstances like those. The airport assistance program of this government has committed itself to major funding in support of the other airport already established. I don't think it's reasonable to ask the First Citizens Fund — and any reasonable person would so decide — to support the application that appeared in that case.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: First of all, I resent the fact that.... I'm not going to spend the rest of the afternoon on this particular topic. The minister made the remark "unreasonable." It's that government that has been unreasonable. That government knows very well that for the last ten years that native Indian band at Bella Bella on Campbell Island have been coming to Victoria and Ottawa. They had finally made the arrangements and they were blocked by this government — not the federal government, but this provincial government.

I want this on the record, Mr. Chairman. After this government was successful in blocking the native Indian band's application for their airport, they then gave the other group $350,000 out of the air travel assistance fund. I want to tell you that that's wrong, wrong, wrong and sheer, bloody discrimination.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's be reminded that moderate and temperate language is always a parliamentary courtesy.

MR. LORIMER: I'd like to ask the minister a question. If in fact the minister and the government intended to give the commissioner a free hand, why did they find it necessary to put those two paragraphs in the order-in-council stating: firstly, to "consider additional representation for existing electoral districts based upon, but not limited to, population,geography," and so on, and secondly, to "consider the subdivision of any multiple-member electoral district that warrants representation by more than two members." I suggest to the minister that those two paragraphs certainly do not give the commissioner a free hand. It's true enough that he may make further recommendations under number three, but surely if that's not a directive, it's a very broad suggestion to the commissioner as to what his powers are with reference to his report.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Putting it simply, Mr. Chairman, the commission was initiated through the recent population census, which directed itself at the mandate issued in the order-in-council, as you say. But he is free to proceed on amendments to those boundaries, as he's indicated himself.

MR. BARBER: Susan Philips, a high school student in Coquitlam and a member of the Templeton High Drama Club, wrote to tell me how much she enjoyed the B.C. Festival of the Arts. She asked me whether or not I would find out if it was going to be on next year. By all accounts it was a great success, as the minister knows. He and I share a particular enjoyment of music, among other arts, and I admit to very strong biases and very strong personal feelings about the arts and performances and about the ability, especially of young people, to express their musical and artistic imagination in the programs and the events that help people understand the humane and the civilizing value of cultural achievement. On behalf of Susan Philips and the Templeton High Drama Club, I ask the minister for a commitment: will the B.C. Festival of the Arts be produced next year?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, that decision will be forthcoming very shortly, and I would hope it would be in the affirmative.

MR. BARBER: On behalf of the official opposition, we hope it's in the affirmative as well. It's a useful venture. It helped a lot of people understand some of the ways in which they in their communities can participate in the arts, particularly the performing arts, and I think that was really useful.

With regard to the cultural policy, as the minister knows, two years ago I raised a number of questions about the absence of a clear policy in British Columbia. I still retain that concern, and do so all the more urgently today. As the minister knows, many professional and semi-professional arts organizations in British Columbia are the victims of hard times, just like everyone else. As the minister knows as well, no formal statement has yet been made by his agencies as to what these arts organizations can expect in the next year in terms of policy. They know specifically what their budgets may be. Most of those decisions have been made already.

What I ask the minister to do is to allow them, through the committee here today, to anticipate as much as they can what they may have to contend with next year. The minister will know, of course, that the cultural services branch is already preparing draft estimates for next year — and that's appropriate — and they are already reviewing the likely spending priorities and proposals that will be made by arts organizations in British Columbia. What I ask the minister to do is indicate what policy criteria will be applied in the fiscal year that is now being put together for arts organizations in British Columbia.

[ Page 8718 ]

I want to argue to the minister as well, as I've done before, that arts are not a frill. They are not lightweight or unimportant; they are a material and necessary element of our culture. There is no point in living in a province like this without the arts to benefit us. There is no point in living on the west coast of North America without being able to appreciate, enjoy and support the arts that give our culture its colour and its vitality and give our people an animation that is absolutely vital to happy living. There is no point to any of the things we do as legislators without simultaneously exercising a commitment to the arts in order to make life more pleasant and our communities more civil. Without the arts and cultural enterprise, this country would be a boring, unimportant and deadening place to live. With arts we express feeling and hope and possibility. With the arts we express views about our future and our way of reshaping the world — if only in our imagination — to make it a more paradisical place to live. The arts grant all these possibilities.

A policy from this Legislature is necessary, especially in tough times, in order that professional and amateur arts organizations can understand what facilities and services may be granted to them in the year for which they are now planning. This is not, by any means, too early an opportunity to take to state those policy criteria and express the way in which they will be executed.

The New Democratic Party believes profoundly that the arts must be supported. We believe with absolute conviction that the arts are elemental to the success of a humane community in British Columbia. We believe that the arts, especially in bad times, must be supported in order that people have at least something decent, happy and pleasant to look forward to, if they can't do so at work, because there is no work, or if they can't do so at school, because the schools are being shut down, and so on. Especially in times of economic recession, the arts should have all the more pre-eminent a place in our culture, our community and in this province.

On behalf of the opposition I ask the minister to tell us what his policy will be in the year that is now being planned. I ask him specifically to advise us — and thereby through this Legislature, the arts community of British Columbia — what we may look forward to in the next year.

I have one other quick matter in regard to lotteries. I've received a unique proposal — and I'll share it with the minister — from a commercial fisherman who proposes that fishing vessels and licences might be sold by way of lottery. He goes on to talk about how many of the vessels that are currently available, for which there are no licences and which are therefore a liability for commercial fishermen, might be made available to the benefit of the fishermen who own own them through a system of lotteries. What I would ask the minister to do is indicate whether or not he's prepared to consider such a proposal, which would simultaneously release these vessels for use by other persons at a price they could in fact afford. I'm thinking of recreational purposes, without the fishing licence attached to them. A provincially run lottery to help dispose of surplus fishing vessels is the proposal that's been put to me, and which I now put in principle to the minister, and ask whether he would be prepared to consider it as one means of disposing of those vessels, to the benefit of the fishermen who own them, as well as to the clear benefit of people who might be lucky enough to win the lottery and thereby obtain them.

It is admittedly a very unusual proposal. But it seems to me it might simultaneously provide some value to the recreational community — the marine recreational community, that is — and as well to the owners of vessels who are currently stuck with them and cannot in any practical way dispose of them, because of course without a licence they have no commercial fishing value. I ask the minister if he would consider that proposal, and would be happy to hear his comments now.

HON. MR. WOLFE: On the member's first question about future policy next year, and whether we will be continuing our level of support for cultural groups and grants, that would be my wish. But it's very early to anticipate. We're just three months into the current year — in which, incidentally, our funding through lottery support, the ministry, and the endowment fund for culture totals about $7.2 million compared to $6.8 million for the previous year. I can't predict next year, and I don't want to throw out any real concern. I think the member is aware of my interest in supporting that side of our ministry, as evidenced by the B.C. Festival of the Arts. It's a new venture; for the first time it has shown proper recognition to the people who....amateur groups are primarily interested in that side of development and recognition. The member knows of my interest and wish to sustain a level of support. But at this stage, I really can't anticipate next year.

I'll have to have a look at the further suggestion made by the member for Victoria about a lottery of the fishing licences.

MR. BARBER: Fishboats.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Fishing boats. These are surplus to the present licensing system; you're suggesting that they be adopted as prizes under the lottery system or...? I'll have a look at that. It would involve a lot of discussion with federal authorities and so on, I presume.

MRS. DAILLY: In winding up this debate today, I would like to endorse the remarks of the last speaker concerning the whole area of culture and the arts in this province, and repeat what he said. In a time of recession I am sure that some people consider the arts as frills; perhaps it's the first area governments look to cut. But in a time of recession that's about the only thing people have to keep them going until more positive steps are taken to improve the economy. So we do make a plea: whatever you do we hope you can maintain a good level of cultural services.

I also want to make a plea for libraries. Although you did give them an increase this year, with pressures that may be coming I'm afraid there may be a tendency to let libraries go in this province. Again, I want to say that to find people unable to get books because of a cutback on libraries by this government — which I hope will never come — would be deplorable.

I've listened carefully to the remarks of the Provincial Secretary in answer to a number of questions. As you know, the biggest concern of the official opposition about this ministry is the overt partisan use of taxpayers' money for propaganda purposes. I have not heard anything today that would give us any assurance that the Social Credit government sees that there is a very definite line between using taxpayers'

[ Page 8719 ]

money for their own political promotion and using it as a government for the benefit of all taxpayers. So we regret that.

As the official opposition, all we can do is to keep a very careful watch on this minister and the propaganda arm that he oversees, particularly during the coming election.

Regarding the matter of travel expenses, office expenses, office furniture, some advertising and publicity, etc., we consider them to be unnecessarily high. I will make the appropriate motions on these concerns as the vote is called.

I would like to move that vote 67 be reduced by $4,000.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 67 approved.

On vote 68: Provincial Secretary and Government Services, $64,504,470.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, in view of my past remarks, I move that vote 68 be reduced by $5,760,169. We consider it waste.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

Mrs. Dailly requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 68 approved.

On vote 69: culture, heritage and recreation programs, $20,871,803.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm referring to travel, furniture, etc., which has already been enunciated. Therefore I move that vote 69 be reduced by $564,767.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 69 approved.

On vote 70; Public Service Commission, $5,051,067.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 70 be reduced by $251,652.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 8720 ]

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 70 approved.

On vote 71: Superannuation Commission, $140,065,034.

MRS. DAILLY: For the same reasons — furniture, travel, etc. — I move that vote 71 be reduced by $486,596.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 71 approved.

On vote 72: Government Employee Relations Bureau, $14,367,240.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 72 be reduced by $204,691.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 72 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

MAJOR GRAIN TERMINAL AT PRINCE RUPERT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I have more good news today for the port of Prince Rupert, the people of British Columbia and for all of western Canada's grain farmers. After numerous delays and reconsiderations, the Alberta government and the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal Consortium Ltd. have agreed on a funding structure which gives the final go-ahead for construction of a major grain terminal at Prince Rupert. The Alberta government has agreed to provide 80 percent of project financing up to the expected $300 million total capital cost. If there is a budget overrun beyond that figure, the Alberta government and the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal Consortium Ltd. will split the excess 60 to 40, with the government of Alberta paying the larger part. The Alberta government fully supports the concept of imposing additional tariffs and surcharges on grain shipments through west coast terminals in order to obtain additional revenue.

Today's announcement gives the final go-ahead to this important development, which adds a world-class grain terminal to the coal and petrochemical facilities already slated for Prince Rupert. The terminal is scheduled to be operational in 1984. Five hundred construction workers will be on

[ Page 8721 ]

site at the height of construction. When operational, the grain terminal will provide up to 90 direct full-time jobs. Of course, we always have to consider the spin-off jobs. Depending on the factor you use, up to 360 jobs could be provided by this terminal.

The grain terminal is only possible at this time due to the government of British Columbia's foresight in working with the federal government on construction of a $10 million access road to the terminal site on Prince Rupert's Ridley Island, which we worked on and started years and years ago. This will be the largest single grain terminal on the west coast of North America, able to handle 1.9 million metric tonnes at start of operation in 1984; that throughput capacity will increase to 3.1 million tonnes by 1989.

This is good news for the Peace River grain farmer. The new grain terminal at Prince Rupert will give him a much shorter access to tidewater. It also places the British Columbia Railway in a position to make a major contribution to the movement of grain from both the Alberta and B.C. sides of the Peace River block.

I want to tell you that the dream of Prince Rupert to become a major world-class port since 1910 is now coming true due to a major economic strategy on behalf of this government to provide a new northern transport corridor and a new major world port using northeast coal as the catalyst. The help and cooperation of our neighbouring province of Alberta and the eventual cooperation of the National Harbours Board make this all possible.

MR. LEA: The official opposition welcomes this news. I personally would like to thank the minister for all of the work he has put into this grain terminal; I know it's been a great deal. There are two people, I think, who should enjoy special mention today. One is a citizen of Prince Rupert who your government appointed to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, Dr. William Hick, who has done a major amount of work in making this project come true. Also, a former federal Minister of transport, Don Mazankowski, also did a major amount of work. It's been a combined effort.

I also would like to echo the words of the minister about Alberta. Alberta has known for some time that their oil resources are finite. They know that their long-term future lies with agriculture, and they have used some of that finite money to finance this grain terminal so that it will be there to service their long-term agricultural needs. It is to the benefit of Alberta and the north Peace River. We will all gain.

It's a good announcement; we welcome it and congratulate the government.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the 1981 annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the financial statements of the British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ending January 1, 1982.

Hon Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:14 p.m.