[ Page 4001 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. Mr. Hanson –– 4002

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Macdonald

Fraser valley bus service. Mr. Rose –– 4003

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

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

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

On vote 54: minister's office –– 4004

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Cocke

Royal assent to bills –– 4023

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we are honoured and very delighted to have with us in your gallery today some very distinguished visitors from our good and friendly North American distant neighbour, the Republic of Mexico. I would very much like to acknowledge, introduce and welcome to our province and assembly His Excellency Ambassador José Andrés de Oteyza, Senator Delgado Ramírez, Senator Mariano Palacios Alcocer, Senator Miguel Borge Martín, Representative Arturo Martinez Legorreta, Representative Manuel Osante López, Representative Enrique León Martínez, and Mr. Francisco Alcala Sanchez.

I would like to add, in Español, and very poquito Español: como buenos vecinos, solamente separados en el centro por nuestro cormún amigo, los Estados Unidos, les damos una gran bienvenida desde el Pacífico Noroeste. Hay muchas personas en la Colombia Británica que tienen grandes lazos e intereses con la hermana República de México. Esperamos que ustedes tendrán una placentera y productiva visita en nuestra provincia. Esperamos que ustedes volverán algún día.

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

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to introduce some friends in your gallery. One of the gentlemen is a former president of the Vancouver and District Baseball Umpires' Association, and he was also one of the first umpires to appear under the dome of B.C. Place when the oldtimers had their game there. He's also a Hall of Famer citizen of North Vancouver and a scout for the New York Yankees. I see all these young people sitting in the gallery today, and I guess.... One of his great functions in the past year for me, as a good friend, was that he was also my campaign manager — Mr. Don Schwery. Next to Don is a friend of his from Vancouver, Ron Crimeni, and I would like the House to welcome him also.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a New Democratic Party candidate of the last election from the great riding of Okanagan North, Mr. Lyle McWilliam, and his wife. I certainly wish Lyle was on the floor of this House with us, and I would like the House to join us in welcoming him.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, the spring break, which allows a lot of our young British Columbians to come to the Legislature, is really a good thing. Today I am fortunate in having a whole gaggle of them in your gallery. I would like to introduce them to this House. First of all there is Mr. Al Jamieson and his wife, Jill, who, just in passing, happens to be the person who runs my constituency office, and their two children, Jamie and Jennifer. I would also like to introduce to the House Dr. Norman Cook, his wife, Beverley, and their children Alan, Matheson and Ann. Last but not least, may I introduce two of my grandchildren, Jason and Jennifer Stow, and I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome the acting director of the Pacific Rim program for Vancouver Community College, Langara campus, who is a good friend: Mr. Gordon Jones, who is in the House today with his wife Kay.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today are a couple of dear friends of mine from Smithers. I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming Ed and Helen Person.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, a group of students from Fraser Valley College are in the gallery today with their instructor. Please make them welcome.

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

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a man who I believe would be very typical of the seniors of Vancouver South. He happens to be retired; he happens to teach art at the bilingual school; he does volunteer work at Pearson Hospital. He is a good citizen and a good man. His name is Mike Davies. Would the House please welcome him.

MR. STRACHAN: At the outset and on behalf of the hon. Davie brothers, former Premiers of the province, I'd like to thank the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) for the expensive but good political science lesson. I would also like to bring to the attention of the House and introduce Mr. David Peterson, who is Clerk of the House for the province of New Brunswick. Hon. members, I had the best lobster feed in my life in Mr. Peterson's back yard. Welcome to British Columbia, David.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, none of us would be in this room without the kind of hard workers that we all have in our constituencies, I would like to introduce a couple of people from Aldergrove who work hard for the process of democracy, Ralph and Merle Snell; with them are Deanne and Julie. Please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C. AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. What steps has the minister taken to bring our air ambulance service into conformity with Ministry of Transport regulations?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would be pleased to respond to specifics with respect to that. As the member would know, the Ministry of Health utilizes aircraft which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. I presume the member is speaking about technical matters relating to licensing and so on, rather than the medical aspect of that. If the member has specific questions, I'd be most pleased to determine what those answers are through the Ministry of Transport.

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

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

[ Page 4002 ]

programs — have brought their air transport service into conformity with Ministry of Transport regulations. Is the minister taking steps to bring our air ambulance service into that kind of conformity.

HON. A. FRASER: I am not aware that we are not in conformity with any regulations that exist. I am not aware what Manitoba and Saskatchewan have done. I would say to that member we have the finest air-ambulance service in the west, and flights fly, night and day, all over this province — regardless of weather. They've never had an accident. I don't know what they're not in conformity of.

MR. COCKE: I have the same kind of information that the Minister of Transport has, and that's when you charge fares you conform to the Ministry of Transport regulations. There are a number of people questioning this at the present time. I am not arguing that the air-ambulance service is not important, good or whatever. I am wondering whether or not we are in any kind of jeopardy as a result of the problem of conformity.

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: I know that we are not in any non-conformity regarding air regulations, but I believe you are referring to complaints made because we charge, and I'll take the question as notice.

PACIFIC COACH LINES LTD.

MR. HANSON: A question to the same minister with respect to Pacific Coach Lines. Several companies that bought buses and other equipment during the liquidation of Pacific Coach Lines have applied to the Motor Carrier Commission for licences to run these buses on the old PCL routes. Has the minister issued any instructions to the Motor Carrier Commission that Maverick Coach Lines, Victoria Gray Line and PCL 1984 Ltd. are required to maintain employment and route services as a condition of the licence?

HON. A. FRASER: I have issued no instructions. Licences of all types are administered and issued by the Motor Carrier Commission, and I'm sure that they'll look after all the things that your.... I'm further advised that all routes will be covered by private-enterprise applications, the Fraser Valley, ferry service and so on, by the April 1 switchover.

MR. HANSON: Supplementary Mr. Speaker. At the time of the liquidation, Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. had some 350 operating drivers and support staff. The three buyers of PCL equipment have indicated that they intend to hire fewer than 50 of these staff. What steps has the minister taken to prevent the loss of 350 jobs providing transportation services on Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley?

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, I don't accept those figures — I'd have to check that out. I haven't taken any specific steps. There are going to be lots of jobs available under the new franchises.

MR. HANSON: A further supplementary. Is the minister advising the House that he will be making no guarantees to those employees that they will have any security of employment with the companies that have acquired the PCL services?

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

MR. STUPICH: My question is to the same minister. Twenty-eight private sector commission agents have been notified that their contracts are cancelled because of the PCL liquidation and sale. That's in the Parksville area, I believe, or at least in the Comox riding. Has the minister directed the Motor Carrier Commission to prevent this downsizing of the private sector through its licensing procedure?

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is no.

MR. STUPICH: Is the minister taking the position that these local business people, such as the K&R store in Parksville in the Comox riding, will receive no consideration from this government for their years of service, and that the government will take no action regarding arbitrary termination of their contracts?

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

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the same minister. At the Vancouver bus terminal on Cambie Street, which is now being taken over by a Greyhound lease, there are 68 PCL employees, and 55 of them have been told they will not have a job. Was there nothing in the sales arrangements that were made to privatize PCL to protect the employees in that kind of a situation?

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

MR. MACDONALD: Then I'll ask the Minister of Human Resources, who has heard the question. Is there any protection for these people? They're now going from a regular job in Vancouver at the headquarters on Cambie Street, and 55 of them are going to be out of work and displaced because Greyhound now has the lease. Did the government do anything to protect those jobs in terms of the privatization?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The sale of Pacific Coach Lines to private ownership will put it in the hands of several different owners after April 1. Nothing but negotiations regarding servicing, safety and the sale of assets were taken into consideration. As in all sales of businesses, it is up to the person who is then the master of their own particular responsibility — that is, the ownership of the company — to make those decisions and to work out an agreement with the employees. We expect that will happen and, of course, the onus is on those businesses to do that. That is not only an implied onus, but the result of business and employee relationships in a time-honoured way for many, many years.

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

[ Page 4003 ]

FRASER VALLEY BUS SERVICE

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. He may wish to ping-pong it over to the Minister of Human Resources, I don't know. He's free to do that.

This concerns bus passenger service in the Fraser Valley. The Motor Carrier Commission, as I understand it, has licensed Cascade Charter to operate the bus passenger service formerly provided by PCL. I'd like to ask whether the minister required Cascade Charter to guarantee bus internal service, before granting the new licence.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't direct anybody. Anybody can apply for that licence; it was available. If and when the licence is issued, the conditions are attached to that licence by the Motor Carrier Commission.

MR. ROSE: One of the things that should be asked is whether they are attached. If so, is the minister really telling us that he did nothing, in the granting of the new licences, to protect the existing services in the bus depots, as well as the service on the runs?

HON. A. FRASER: I would guess — but I don't know this — that the Motor Carrier Commission looked into all those facets, because they're interested in the service to the general public. I think they would take that all....

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

MR. ROSE: It was granted on March 21.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that the Motor Carrier Commission has not said they have issued any licences. I think you're referring to the superintendent's office, who said they had been sent to the Motor Carrier Commission. As of now I'm not aware that any formal licences have been issued.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT B.C. PLACE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the minister responsible for B.C. Place. On Thursday, February 10, 1983, the Premier announced a financing scheme to make homes in B.C. Place more affordable. He said homeowner payments covering principal, interest and taxes would not exceed 25 percent of income. On March 16, 1984, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) during the estimates said this proposal has not been accepted. I'm wondering if the minister responsible for B.C. Place will advise why this oft-repeated Socred election promise has been killed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I think "killed" is a terrible word, especially for a proposal that may go ahead but is under review at the present time. Until such time as the government has decided its disposition, it will remain under review.

MR. BLENCOE: It would appear that one minister doesn't know what the other is doing. We have the minister responsible for Housing saying it is no longer going ahead, and we've got the minister responsible for B.C. Place saying it is going ahead. Let's see if we can get some uniformity on this particular issue. In view of the fact that this particular election promise appears to have been reneged — considering the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing's statement the other day — what action has been taken to provide affordable housing for families at B.C. Place?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, this question could take some time to answer. We have only recently completed the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, where this question might be more appropriately put. However, there are several things under consideration. My colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing responded to you regarding specific projects of their ministry, not necessarily proposals put forward by B.C. Place.

MR. BLENCOE: On March 16 the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing said he would be taking no action on an emergency proposal from Vancouver city council for the provision of 4,000 units of low-cost housing in the vicinity of the Expo 86 site. In view of the minister's answer that he is taking no action because, "We are not involved in the Expo site," what action has the minister responsible for B.C. Place decided to take?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the member doesn't listen, or he chooses not to hear. The matter is under consideration, There are several things being considered and as they are in a position to go forward, we'll bring them forward. He'll be the very first to know, if he's listening.

KWANTLEN COLLEGE EMPLOYMENT
ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM FOR WOMEN

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour. The employment alternatives program for women at Kwantlen College has provided a very successful bridging program for women seeking employment, one which was featured in Social Credit pre-election campaign ads. I'm sure the Minister of Labour is aware of it. Is the minister aware, however, that this program is facing elimination?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I hope that, as Minister of Labour, he will look into it on behalf of all the women who have enjoyed this program. Will the minister bring back to the House affirmation that this program will be continued? Yes? Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, one of the very fine interns that serve our caucus has his father in the precinct today visiting various people, and I am pleased to

[ Page 4004 ]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I should refrain from uttering a few opening remarks. It appears to me that everybody wants to support my estimates without debate. If that is the case, I will relinquish my place and allow the votes to go by. I see one little fellow over there who's hesitant to allow that to take place. Under the circumstances, I want to say that it is again a pleasure and an opportunity for me to elaborate on the activities of this ministry, for which I've had administrative responsibility for only a short period of time. I've been in charge of this ministry only 18 months. This is only the second opportunity I've had to appear before the House to justify the proposed expenditure of public dollars.

[2:30]

The Provincial Secretary's ministry has a heavy involvement in cultural activities. The cultural wealth of a society is one of its most valuable natural resources. The cultural variety and vitality that we have developed in British Columbia make this a particularly rewarding province to live and work in or to visit. This ministry contributes to the cultural life of the province more than any other single agency. Through recreation and sports programs, cultural and heritage services, and a world-renowned provincial museum, our ministry provides the people of British Columbia with an opportunity to learn and develop through participation in sports and fitness activities, the arts and the rich heritage of this province.

In the estimates for 1984-85 the administrative costs of delivering these programs have been reduced. But the special-purpose funds which provide direct assistance for individual artists and athletes, as well as development grants for arts organizations and sports, remain in excess of $50 million. In other words, we're delivering virtually the same level of programs, services and funding, but at a reduced administrative cost. This increased efficiency is the direct result of the government's restraint measures.

As an example of the kind of results we're achieving in our investment in sports and culture, I cannot do better than to refer to the B.C. Games just completed this month in Fort St. John. Thousands of dedicated volunteers in that small but dynamic northern community orchestrated one of the finest sports events in the history of this province. The B.C. Games attracted thousands of participants — in fact, 2,250 participants from every comer of British Columbia. They left behind a legacy of good sportsmanship and healthy competition, and stimulated the local economy as well.

In May the community of Penticton will be striving to match the accomplishments of Fort St. John, as it hosts the B.C. Festival of the Arts. Like the games, the festival gives British Columbians of all ages the opportunity to participate, to push themselves to higher levels of achievement and to make their mark. By the time it is over, the B.C. Festival of the Arts and the many regional playdowns that lead to it will have involved more than 90,000 people. Each of those 90,000 individuals will take away an invaluable experience. The festival itself will involve some 1,500 participants in competitions, master classes and performances, and through media coverage and direct audience exposure will generate heightened awareness of the arts.

On the Government Services side of the ministry, briefly, the amalgamation of the personnel agencies of government and the reduction of staff in ministry personnel branches will result in a leaner, more productive personnel machine. There is no question that the streamlining of internal government programs must accompany, indeed must lead, the streamlining of public programs. We are determined to get maximum efficiency out of the government services provided by the Provincial Secretary's ministry. These estimates take us another step closer to making government not the bloated bureaucracy it has sometimes been accused of being, but a model of efficiency for private as well as public sector administration.

I look forward to any questions that might be put forward to me in the next few minutes during which my estimates will be on the floor of the House.

MR. HANSON: It's interesting to note in the minister's remarks that he didn't take any credit for having this House sit for 24 hours a day last year to move toward his so-called downsizing of the public service. He didn't take any credit for that at all. He talked about art and his responsibility in art. That minister is renowned in artistic circles in this province for referring to the B.C. collection of art as garbage art. This particular minister has no real interest in the arts or in the cultural heritage of the province.

It was interesting that in his remarks he really deflected from his major responsibility, which is the public service in this province. The public sector is his baby, Mr. Chairman. He has caused more personal anguish — beyond any other minister probably in recent history in this province — than any other individual in the history of this House.

Mr. Chairman, we know that when Bill 3 was introduced in this House, a shockwave went through 200,000 public service families in this province, and that particular shockwave is still reverberating through the economy. People are not spending money, because their job security, whether it's in a hospital, a school or in direct employ of the government, has not been resolved. They are totally insecure not only in Victoria but in every administrative centre in the province of British Columbia.

What we have facing us is something in the order of another 1,100 job cuts — flesh-and-blood individuals with families, with the necessities of paying their mortgages, putting groceries on the table, looking after their own needs and providing for their own livelihood. Did we hear that minister in his remarks about his responsibilities talking about the fact that there were going to be 1,100 more layoffs in the public service?

I'm going to be giving you specifics shortly, Mr. Minister. But we're having cutbacks in the people who are the custodians of our forest resource — the people's forest resource. The people who monitor air quality in this province, the people who monitor soil quality, the people who work in the preservation of agricultural land and people who are providing all sorts of support services in the government are going. What is happening is that it's being contracted out to private contractors, which in the long term costs the public more. The quality of the work oftentimes is not of the same calibre. It causes disruptions and greater unemployment.

[ Page 4005 ]

The philosophy of this government is to turn over the activity of government to the private sector, to try to make money in areas that traditionally were the responsibility of the public service — providing the best possible guaranteed standard of care and service in various areas. The trend of this government is to create more massive unemployment at a time when we are having a recession. When the government could play a role in stabilizing employment, they're going in the opposite direction and creating more unemployment, more insecurity and more lack of confidence in the economy of our province.

Let's just quickly run through some of the major cuts that the government has planned before this House. It's interesting to note that the expenditures that assist the cabinet ministers in travelling in comfort to the far corners of the earth are increased. There is more money for that particular activity. Let's have a look at how much. In the Provincial Secretary's budget there is a vote called "protocol and special services" which includes cabinet expenses and ministerial travel. It is increased by a quarter of a million dollars. Those 20 individuals who sit on the government benches are the government. This isn't the government over here; this is the opposition. The back-benchers are just the trained seals. They just vote when these people tell them to vote. That little group of 20 people who are the government of British Columbia have made available to themselves an additional quarter of a million dollars, in addition to their regular travel and expense budget, so that they can travel in comfort to the far corners of the earth — $243,045.

The Legislative Library here, which is the el primo library of British Columbia, has had its budget cut back marginally, even at a time when there is still some inflation. Book costs are going up, but the support revenue for the provincial library in this building has been cut by $25,000. The legislative building here has been cut by $750,000. The maintenance of this building, which is the property of the people of the province and the law-making chamber of this province, has been cut by $750,000. Some of that would be reflected in a transfer of staff to BCBC.

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

MR. HANSON: If it hadn't been for the New Democratic Party government in 1973 putting this building back together, it would have fallen down by now. The Socred government for the previous 20 years had let this place fall into disrepair; there was plaster and lath falling off and the roof was leaking. The finest tradesmen in this whole province have put this building back together again, and it was the New Democratic Party government that said that this is a jewel and a treasure for the people of all of the province. And now this government has transferred those journeyman tradesmen, who do this fine plasterwork — this isn't drywall, this is hand-done plasterwork, hand-applied gold and various kinds of paints, and so on.... It's a treasure that belongs to the people of this province, and it should be maintained for ever and a day. Yet this government is now transferring those people, breaking up this crew and sending them off to various other government buildings when they should be kept as a crew to do public works for the benefit of all British Columbians heritage restoration work and so on.

Vote 56 is what they call the government information bureau. To the average individual "government information" sounds innocent enough, but what it is is a propaganda organization within the government. A Mr. Doug Heal is in charge, and this is the money he has to spend to make the image of the government presentable to the public so that they can guarantee the re-election of those people on that side of the House. It goes to $18.9 million, assessed by that minister to protect the image of the government. At the same time as they take $50 a month off the disabled and deny the Crane Library at UBC $39,000 for materials for the blind, they are able to spend $18.9 million on glossy brochures to try to convince the people of the province that they are acting on their behalf. It is absolutely scandalous. We have 200,000 people unemployed in British Columbia and 250,000 people on social assistance. That's a staggering figure. A quarter of a million people, in our small population, are on social assistance, and yet they can find $19 million for glossy brochures, radio clips, TV advertising, Lotto and various kinds of games advertising, and so on, when that money could be used to provide meaningful employment so people could look after their own families.

[2:45]

We heard the minister talking about culture and heritage. Let's just take a look. The money allocated to culture, heritage and recreation was very modest in the first place. This government has never had any high priority on the heritage resources — both historic and archaeological — of this province. That particular vote is cut from $19.5 million to $17.8 million — a close to $2 million cut in heritage, recreation and culture. The implications of this very modest saving are severe in terms of the level of service and the subsidy provided.

For example, anyone who has ever visited the Provincial Museum is proud of it. It's a beautiful institution, it's free, it's a fine educational institution and it has some of our finest display people who are able to take information about the natural, human and biological history of this province and transform that into displays which are a tribute to all of us. We're all proud to take friends through those displays and say: "Isn't this a great provincial museum, which belongs to all of us?" The Provincial Museum cut implies ten positions and is cut from $5.3 million in 1983-84 to $4.8 million. So in heritage conservation there has been a $553,000 or 24.3 percent cut in spending since 1982-83.

Let me just tell you something about heritage conservation. Most British Columbians think that British Columbia is a new province in terms of having been recently colonized by people of European or Asian descent in the last 100 or 150 years. It's not a new province at all. People have lived in this province for 10,000 or more years. The only reason people think it's a new province is that most British Columbians are not given an opportunity to understand the richness and importance of the 10,000 years of Indian history prior to European contact. Do you know, Mr. Chairman — seeing that the minister mentioned heritage matters — that only 10 percent of the heritage archaeological sites which are the remnants of that 10,000 years of history are still left? Only 10 percent of all of the known archaeological sites in British Columbia are still partially or completely intact. The rest have been bulldozed. They've had roads built on them, houses, dams, forestry roads, clear-cut logging and so on. I'm pointing out that of the 10,000 years of history that is locked in the ground.... The Indian people of this province had no written history; they had oral history. It was passed by word of mouth from generation to generation. The only information that is available to the Indian people of this

[ Page 4006 ]

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

I might just add that the Indian languages of British Columbia...we have the most diverse linguistic heritage of any place in North America. We have more Indian languages in British Columbia than all of Canada, in proportion to our area. We have 30 Indian languages within our boundaries. When I hear that minister talking about heritage and culture, saying that his ministry does more for heritage and culture, it is comical, it is tragic, it is a travesty. We have 10 percent of the Indian heritage left in terms of archaeological sites, which are being destroyed every day. The Indian languages are disappearing as the elders who understand the languages die. The languages are disappearing, the culture is being obliterated, and the government ministry that could do something about it for the benefit of all of us — it would enrich all of our lives — does nothing.

I have, on four occasions in this House, introduced a private member's bill asking for a small institute to be established to protect the Indian languages of this province — to record them, to offer them in the curricula of the school system. In places like Cowichan, where there happens to be a very large number of Cowichan people, they are not given the opportunity to learn their own Indian language. They can't even team it in school. It's possible now in some schools and colleges to learn Mandarin Chinese or Cantonese or Greek or something else from a European or Asian area, but the indigenous people of this province, who are asking only for the right to learn their own language, are denied that right. What would it take? We could take a little bit. We could take two glossy brochures of Doug Heal. We could take $200,000 or $300,000 out of Mr. Doug Heal's budget and give that to a board with Indian people on it, with linguists, academics and government appointees. We could say: "We have a commitment to you, the 200,000 people of Indian ancestry of British Columbia, for you to have the right to learn your own language." What's wrong with that?

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

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

That's just one tiny thing that this government could do that would be of benefit to the people of this province. It would be meaningful. Anyone who's travelled in British Columbia beyond the lower mainland or Victoria knows there are pockets of large Indian communities that desperately want to know their own culture. The provincial government and the federal government love to gather up Indian artifacts and take them off to world expositions, take them off to Paris, to Edinburgh, and let the people of the world have a look. They're in awe; they are staggered by the cultural accomplishments of the Indian people of this province. The Kwakiutl people, the Haida, the Simshan, the Salish, the Nootka, have wonderful cultural achievements. These symbols, this provincial museum that has.... I don't know the number of people who go through that museum in a year but it must be close to a million; it's in the hundreds of thousands. They go through and they say: "Isn't that wonderful!" At the same time, what do the Indian people of this province get out of it? They don't have a chance to protect the heritage resources, their archaeological sites. They don't have an opportunity to interpret them to themselves and to the people of the province. They don't have the chance to build it into the school curriculum. They don't have a chance to learn their own language and salvage it. Three languages are already extinct.

It's very hard for people of European or Asian ancestry to understand that.... All of us in this chamber know that if we are of Lithuanian, German, English or Anglo-Saxon ancestry our original language is alive and well in some other place in the world. But the Indian people are sitting in their own homes watching their own cultures die. When such-and-such an elder passes away, that language is no longer available to them. All they need are recording devices where people could come and learn how to transcribe their own language and a place where the elders could come and receive some modest payment. Linguists earn salaries working at universities to study Indian languages, but the Indian people themselves.... An elder who has in his own mind his entire 10,000 years of history in terms of his language, culture and what he wants to convey to his own people has no facility available to him to do that. Why not? It's so small, and it would reap such invaluable rewards. How many different ways, and how many different times, do I have to say it? It's such a simple thing to do. It's a non-partisan thing. Do something. Take a little of Doug Heal's money and make it available to the Indian people of this province to know their own history. When I hear that minister talking about all the wonderful things that he does for culture, it's just ridiculous.

There has been a cut in cultural services — support for performing arts, museums and galleries — from $1.5 million in 1982-83 to $794,000; in other words, that's all the money available for heritage things, which are relatively labour-intensive. I saw a news release today where the Premier announced that there will be a road-widening program in his riding of Okanagan South. Five million dollars will be made available to lay asphalt and widen a road, which will employ 20 people for a short span of time. At the same time, they cut three-quarters of a million dollars from all of the museums and cultural bodies in the province. They slashed their whole expenditure in half...

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

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

...from $1.5 million to three-quarters of a million dollars. It should be common knowledge to anyone in the gallery, to anyone in the public, to anyone who takes the time to read between the lines in the newspapers, that the Social Credit government doesn't care about libraries, museums and heritage. The heritage budget of the province has been cut by 25 percent since 1982-83.

Do you know what we get instead? Glossy little books that Doug Heal puts out — like this. These cost a fortune. Do you know what's in this? Nine pictures of Socred cabinet ministers. We have a picture of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) on the first anniversary of a multicultural women's organization. We don't have any content of any program, but we have the picture of the Minister of Labour. Let's see: we turn over and we go a whole page without a cabinet minister's picture. Then we go to a picture of the Minister of Finance talking about his trip to India. Over to page 6, and we've got a picture of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Did you get a good look at that picture,

[ Page 4007 ]

Mr. Chairman? That's the seatmate from the adjacent riding. Then we go another couple of pages, and we see more pictures of W.A.C. Bennett. Of course, they have to have pictures of Indian cultural artifacts, beautiful masks. Here's a picture of a potlatch. Yet is there any kind of serious support for the maintenance of Indian culture? No.

On the back cover it says: "Living Heritage." You can subscribe to it. Do you know what the living heritage of British Columbia is, Mr. Chairman? Four pictures. We have the minister — that minister there — the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour. That's the living heritage of British Columbia — not the 10,000 years of Indian history, not the early colonization, not the building of the CPR by the Chinese, not the history of the Japanese people and their experiences during the Second World War, or early colonization in the Peace River by German socialists, or early farming activities in the Walhachin Valley, or recent events, or early gold-mining activity other than Barkerville and Fort Steele, which seem to suck up most of the dough.

We have a fortune being spent here that could go directly to little museums — in Kamloops, in the Kootenays — so they could develop their own regional heritage programs. What we have instead is this kind of stuff. That's where the money's going. They cut three-quarters of a million out of that budget, and three-quarters of a million is half of the total amount.

[3:00]

Let's go through and see some of the other cuts. In cultural services, the support of performing arts, museums and galleries has been cut 47.8 percent. Grants have been cut from $667,000 in 1982-83 to just $50,000. Expenditure from the B.C. Cultural Fund will be cut to $1.5 million from $2 million last year, when there was an excess of expenditure over revenue of $496,000.

The question of overexpenditure of funds from special purpose funds in an election year. The thing is that money seemed to be available to be spent just before the election. Would the government be playing politics with the heritage and culture of the province? Just the same is the Lottery Fund. The money expended in grants from the lottery revenue is way down. It is way down because they spent a fortune — more than they had — just before the election on the little giveaways for political purposes, to get votes, and now it's not available.

I'd like to ask the minister to note on his pad.... I would like to question him regarding the unevenness of the spending in relation to the election and the pre-election advertising, with specific attention to the lottery disbursements. I'd like to know where the lottery report is. Where is the lottery report that indicates the grants by electoral district?

With respect to the public sector labour issue, I want to ask him about the melding of the Public Service Commission and the Government Employee Relations Bureau. To the public it may sound like a lot of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, but in government we have on the one hand the Public Service Commission, which is supposed to be hiring people based on merit. The Public Service Commission is in charge of recruitment and selection of competent people. The average British Columbia individual who wants to work in the Ministry of Education, Health or Labour or Provincial Secretary or something fills in an application and files it with the Public Service Commission to be looked at on the basis of merit in a selection process, to be hired by the government. That is supposed to be independent from the politicians. Those are politicians over there. They will tend to hire their political friends if they are given an opportunity to do it, and certainly they can do that when they circumvent the process and hire consultants; when they lay people off or terminate them in the government service, they can then hire somebody that they want to hire out of a consultant pool of money. They can do this now without going to Treasury Board. I believe the figure is $50,000.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer some of the questions and dispel some of the innuendoes and misleading statements made by that little member for Victoria.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, just a minute, there's more. There was a personal reference, and I'll have the minister withdraw the personal reference to the other member. Please withdraw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Which one is that?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to respond to some of the erroneous utterances of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) in his half-hour speech. First of all, I want to talk

[ Page 4008 ]

about layoffs in government. He has indicated that 1,100 will be laid off imminently in different ministries of government. Any layoffs that take place are the sole responsibility of each and every minister. I certainly recognize that there are FTEs that are applied to the different ministries, and it is up to the minister to determine the most effective way in which he will achieve that objective.

The member talks about the question of contracting out, and is attempting to lead the people of British Columbia to believe that that is the mechanism used by the government to reduce the size of the public service. That is not correct. In some instances we have done some contracting out, but it is very minimal.

The member sounds to me as if he is the mouthpiece for the B.C. Government Employees' Union. If he is, he should talk to them about the misleading ad they put in the Vancouver Province last Sunday. It's one which I thought was disgraceful, in poor taste and misleading, in which they showed a crushed Conmac bus — which cost the lives of two students from the greater Victoria area and injured many others — and left the impression with the people of this province that we as a government have abandoned inspection of buses and taxis in British Columbia. Certainly we have closed down the motor vehicle testing stations, but we have not stopped the ongoing inspection of buses and taxis. If the member has any influence as a former member of the BCGEU, I wish he would tell his brothers and sisters to stop using these misleading, tasteless and dishonest ads in the newspapers.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: He appears to be defending them. He was talking about contracting out and using the BCGEU line. The member is probably still a member of that union, and I wish he would tell the leaders and his brothers and sisters to have a little more taste.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather bewildered. The member talks about the travel vote and a quarter of a million dollars more being allocated for travel by ministers. The information that I have here suggests that the travel vote is down by $50,000, not up by $250,000, as has been suggested by the first member for Victoria. An erroneous statement has again been put forward on the matter of travel.

On the question of the maintenance crew, I recognize that the upgrading of the building took place in 1973. But the thing that the member fails to understand and is unwilling to accept is the fact that the renovation of this particular building has come to an end. The work is finished. We no longer need that maintenance crew or those skilled craftsmen within the parliament buildings. What we have done is transfer those employees. We didn't lay them off; we transferred them over to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, where their skills can be used and savings to the taxpayers achieved. It used to cost $700,000 a year for that maintenance crew to look after this building. We have now shifted those craftsmen across to the B.C. Buildings Corporation — a very efficient move, I might say — and the craftsmen are all gratified at having had the opportunity of moving over to BCBC. We've arranged the contract with BCBC whereby we'll save $300,000 of the taxpayers' money.

Are you suggesting for a moment that we should keep those people here because they are expert craftsmen? I'm not going to deny they are; I think they do excellent work. But when there's nothing further to do, are you suggesting we keep them here? Is that the socialist philosophy? It's not our philosophy. These dollars we're dealing with are dollars that belong to the taxpayers of British Columbia. We have a responsibility to ensure that those dollars are well used and not wasted, as you are suggesting should take place. The point I'm making is that the work is finished. That's a thing you must accept. The work is over. From time to time, when some maintenance job does appear on the horizon for this building, we can always call on those people, because we have a contractual arrangement with the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Those people are still available to us in a time of need, but only in a time of need.

The member talks about the Indian language and its preservation. As a former employee of the Provincial Museum, as an archaeologist himself and as a former public servant, he must recognize that we have four employees dealing strictly with native language matters. The member must recognize that we have four employees who are working on the basis of attempting to preserve and record the native languages of this province. So we are doing our part as far as the preservation and recording of native languages here in British Columbia are concerned. We also make a contribution to the various Indian bands of British Columbia through a perpetual fund. A minimum of $1.8 million is conveyed each and every year to the Indian bands throughout British Columbia for projects that they feel are meaningful and necessary on their reserves. We as a ministry are actively involved in supporting native affairs in British Columbia. In fact, starting about the middle of May the museum will have some special events, in which there will be a totem-pole raising, a potlatch and other matters of interest as far as Indian culture is concerned. This ministry and the employees of this ministry are actively involved in working on behalf of the native heritage and its protection here in British Columbia.

The member talks about heritage conservation. He talks about the very dramatic decrease in expenditures. We have our operating costs this year, and the heritage conservation branch is up by 1 percent. It's not up very much, but it's not down. He talks about how we're not preserving 15,000 years of history in British Columbia. I would think that our forefathers and those people who came before us settled in certain areas of British Columbia. I think it's a logical pattern established some considerable time ago that is being followed. I don't know where you suggest that the people who come to British Columbia to live should live. Should they live on the mountaintops? Are you suggesting that all the valleys that were lived in many thousands of years ago should be abandoned because there are some archaeological sites there?

MR. HANSON: You're missing my point.

[3:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: The point is that just last year, Mr. Member, 600 archaeological sites were registered in British Columbia — for 1983-84 — under the Heritage Conservation Act, which brings the total of archaeological sites that have been established in British Columbia to 15,500. If you ever get out of politics and go back to your old profession of archaeology, maybe you'll have an opportunity to play around and dig up some old bones in one or many of these 15,500 sites that have been established by the heritage conservation branch. I think this ministry is doing a tremendous job as far as the protection of our heritage is concerned.

[ Page 4009 ]

The member talked about library services. There is essentially no reduction. The amount of money in the budget for library services has been reduced by $29,421 out of a budget of $7,670,690. We are making a tremendous contribution. I want to say that I've received many letters from various library groups throughout British Columbia commending the government for having at least maintained the status quo as far as funding for libraries throughout British Columbia is concerned. Of that $7,670,000, $6,206,000 goes to maintain book grants to the B.C. library system throughout the province. So the program is an excellent one that provides a very important service throughout British Columbia, and that's why it continues to maintain the kind of recognition that it's had in the past.

I think that pretty well covers most of the questions.

MR. HANSON: I would like to ask the minister a specific question. The protocol and special services vote, which includes travel, is up by $250,000. I'd like to ask the minister why.

I'd also like to ask the minister why he is melding the Public Service Commission and the Government Employee Relations Bureau, when the Public Service Commission is independent in charge of selection and recruitment, and the Government Employee Relations Bureau is charged with negotiating the collective agreements between the various bargaining agents within the government service, and the administration of those contracts. Why is he putting them together? There is an appearance that the Public Service Commission may lose its impartiality, its arm's-length status from government, rather than having, as we saw, direct involvement from the political level in the bargaining process last time. We know that it ultimately is the duty of cabinet or Treasury Board to authorize a settlement with its own employees, but it is also structurally vital that the agency that conducts the collective bargaining process on behalf of government does it on the basis of its experience and professionalism, and not its partisan chain-yanking that occurs when direct involvement at the bargaining table takes place by politicians. We have always said that the politicians should stay away from the bargaining table. They should let the Government Employee Relations Bureau and its bargaining agents hammer out the package that is required.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It isn't too much history to look back and see what kinds of arrangements were developed during a three-year period when contracts were signed for a three-year period at an annual increase of 8 percent, when interest rates soared to 20 percent, and so on. There was never any attempt made to renege on those agreements on the part of the bargaining agents. Whether they were the professional association, nurses, government employees or whatever, a contract was a contract. It was lived with. Then, of course, we saw bills introduced in this House that overruled collective agreements, that took away rights that were bargained, that were determined, in terms of the rights of government employees. That's why we were staying up 24 hours a day in this chamber. What is the purpose of melding the GERB with the PSC? How will the recruitment and selection processes, the safety portion, of the Public Service Commission, the safety and training part...? How does that meld with the Government Employee Relations Bureau? I would like answers to those questions.

That minister claims to have no responsibility for the layoffs that will be occurring, but that minister is in charge of the Public Service Commission. His responsibility is the Government Employee Relations Bureau that administers the collective agreements. The collective agreements call for notice from the government whenever they're going to make a major alteration in contracting out. Let's just take the deputy sheriffs in the Ministry of the Attorney-General. There is an article in the collective agreement, which is under the authority of that minister, and the ministry apparently has refused to meet with the bargaining agents to negotiate the question of contracting out the duties of the deputy sheriffs. Here's that minister responsible for GERB, GERB administers the contract, the deputy sheriff service under the Attorney-General wants to contract it out — it's a private police force and yet there is provision of an existing contract which is in place. So I'd like an answer from the minister as to what his position is with respect to the collective agreements that are in place, particularly article 32(13).

I gather from various press stories and news releases from the minister's office and various articles that electrical inspection services that are presently under government are to be transferred to B.C. Hydro. I would like the minister to indicate, again, what is the contract arrangement through GERB to allow this process to occur. What is the cost saving to the taxpayer?

Again, in privatizing the work of the Forest Service coastal and marine services, the truck and transport fleet is to be eliminated. The function of that was to carry government workers, forestry equipment and nursery seedlings to various locations for silvicultural and reforestation purposes. That work is to be privatized.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that ministries have responsibility, but that is the super minister in terms of the responsibility for government service. He is the minister responsible for administering the work, the scheduling of work, the work to be performed, the conditions and all the aspects of work surrounding the government service. GERB plays a major role in Crown corporations, in colleges, in B.C. Systems Corporation and in administering all of these contracts, whether they're under the Labour Code or whether they're under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. That's a big, tough minister over there in terms of his responsibilities.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a pussycat.

MR. HANSON: He is a pussycat. He's an absolute pushover for the private contractors. They just say: "Here's a money maker. Give us the plum." Contract it out, rather than having quality of service performed within the public service in care and services that are normally not available on a money-making, profit-making arrangement. So let's hear a philosophical statement from the government, through that minister, with respect to the advantage to having a private sheriff service in the province of British Columbia. What is the advantage to the province to have private food services in the jails? I raised that once before, Mr. Chairman. I felt it would be a problem to contract out the food services from the jails because I thought there'd be security problems. They have in the government employ at the moment what they call food service officers. These people are trained in security matters. Now a private company called Acme Hot Foods is

[ Page 4010 ]

going to get a contract to provide food to Wilkinson Road jail or to some camp situation or Oakalla. What safeguards do the Acme employees have? What training do they have? What security measures are in place? What prevention is there to ensure there's not a hostage-taking? What safeguards are there to ensure that the quality of the food is adequate, not to antagonize the residents?

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to disturb the member's train of thought but, really, hostage-takings in prisons and the quality of food in jails is not one of my administrative responsibilities. Decisions on privatization or contracting out of services not within this ministry are decisions made by another minister. So for the sake of expediting the business of this House, I think those questions could be better put to the proper minister at the appropriate time.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, really, Mr. Chairman — and I wish you would recognize this point — the question of hostage-taking, the question of the number of prison guards and whether the sheriff services of the Ministry of the Attorney-General should be contracted out is not a responsibility of this ministry. Certainly I recognize that there is some correlation between decision-making in the Ministry of the Attorney-General and this ministry because of the Government Employee Relations Bureau that comes under this ministry. I can address that particular issue. But the issue of the wisdom and the advisability of whether we should go one way or the other as far as certain services of government are concerned is left exclusively with certain ministers, and I can't possibly answer for every minister of government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I think we certainly appreciate what you have said. Perhaps the hon. member — I know what he's getting at — could direct the questioning in such a way that it would be more pertinent to the administrative function of the Provincial Secretary's position.

[3:30]

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

The minister is responsible for the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission is responsible for safety programs in the government service. When he or one of his colleagues contracts out a service normally provided by the government, such as the provision of food in a jail, the Public Service Commission still has a responsibility for safety in the public service. That is a public institution. Does the minister follow? I'm asking him what provision he has made for safety when he contracts out the food service in the jails. A simple question. Okay?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Uh huh.

MR. HANSON: All right. That is a concern to many people — the other people working in the institutions and so on. When a group of employees from outside are brought in to perform a task within a security area, I want to know of that minister — who has the responsibility for safety — whether adequate provision is made for safety in that contracting-out arrangement. That's a simple and straightforward case.

The minister doesn't like to assume any responsibility for layoffs; he says that's the sole responsibility of other ministries. But clearly, establishment in the government service is essentially his responsibility. Establishment is the size of the government service. Let's just take a look at the plan for March 31 of this year. In Highways, a loss of 355 more positions; 355 more families that rely on the Ministry of Highways are going to be without their mortgage and grocery payments in two weeks. Environment — 38 positions. Are these positions — water quality, soil quality, monitoring air quality and so on — redundant, wasteful positions? Absolutely not. Thirty-eight to go. Attorney-General: 115 positions in the establishment of the government service as of March 31. Forests: when millions of acres and thousands of hectares — or, as my good friend from Atlin (Mr. Passarell) calls them, hectacres — of forest land has been improperly or inadequately restocked, the establishment of the public service is being reduced in areas that provide for that kind of activity, either in nursery capacity or in overseeing the company's responsibility to adequately restock areas they cut. So what do we have? In two weeks' time, 500 more positions in the Ministry of Forests. Education: at a time when education should be a top priority, 53 more positions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It appears to me that the member is on a course of attempting to discuss each and every ministry as far as staffing is concerned. The question of whether the forest lands of British Columbia are adequately stocked or not is not an administrative responsibility of mine. The member might argue that the size the establishment of the various ministries of government is my responsibility. That is not my responsibility. It rests with Treasury Board. Many of the issues that are being raised here have absolutely nothing to do with this ministry.

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

In fact, the Chair is having some difficulty with this line. I thought at the outset of what the hon. member was saying that I could relate it to the administrative functions of the Provincial Secretary, but then it seemed to be drifting away, and we seemed to be talking about other ministries over which the Provincial Secretary has absolutely no jurisdiction at all. Perhaps the hon. member could be just a little more careful in how he proceeds.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I understand your counsel. But at the same time, I am pointing out to the minister that he does have responsibility with respect to the transfer of employees from one area to another. Under the Public Service Commission he is responsible for the promotion, demotion or transfer of employees within the public service. So when employees are moved from the Forest Service, and then, through the collective agreements, they are burnping people in other ministries, in other areas, that's his decision. Five hundred positions are going to go from the Forest Service, and then those employees are going to end up somewhere else, because if they've got any seniority they're going to bump somebody further down the line. Mr. Chairman, do you follow me?

[ Page 4011 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I follow you very well, and then we get to a certain point where we seem to lose each other. Certainly I appreciate the responsibility of this ministry for the Public Service Commission. But when it comes down to individual positions within ministries, it seems to me that there it kind of changes — it's no longer his direct responsibility. I realize the Chair shouldn't enter into a debate or argument, but I'm just trying to bring the debate back into line with what we normally would discuss under estimates. Having done this many times, hon. member, perhaps you would have no trouble in sticking to the administration of the office of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. HANSON: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

It is easier for that minister to hide behind his 19 colleagues. He has responsibility for the public service in total. He is the man in charge of the public service. Any time promotion, demotion, transfer, recruitment, selection, safety or other training occurs anywhere in the government service, he says: "Oh, that's not mine. Go talk to the Minister of Forests. Go talk to the Minister of Human Resources. Go talk to the Minister of Education." He wants to hide. But I think he should be big enough, because he comes from that Canal Flats–Invermere area where people walk tall and talk straight.

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

MR. HANSON: You bet.

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

Interjection.

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

Clearly that minister must take responsibility. When we're talking about contracting out in the government service, the buck stops on his desk and not just at the minister responsible. He has a role in the transferring of those employees into another ministry; he has a role in the impact of that decision. I'm asking legitimate questions about whether when the contracting out takes place his responsibilities have been covered. One of them is the safety angle. I think that's a legitimate question, and we deserve to have a fair response. When we talk about 38 positions in Human Resources coming to an end in child care and special education support, he says: "That's my colleague the Minister of Human Resources." What will happen is that 38 positions in Human Resources will go. Many of those people will have sufficient seniority, I assume, to be offered alternatives somewhere else in government. They will then be bumping people in other ministries.

I want to ask a specific question of that minister. How many times has the bumping been used in the government service since the introduction of his restraint program? In other words, of the layoffs that have occurred, how many laid off on the basis of the lowest seniority to the highest seniority have taken advantage of bumping provisions in the agreement? Is that clear to the minister?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. HANSON: Okay.

As I pointed out, we're looking at 1,100 more jobs gone in two weeks time. There are going to be an awful lot of very unhappy people. There are going to be an awful lot of people without any money to spend, which is going to hurt government revenues. There are going to be a lot of people who are denied important services that the government provides. We have not had a proper debate on the impact that that has had on our economy. We have not been provided with detailed information in this House on this subject.

I'd like to move on, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk a little bit about the people in managerial jobs in the government — in other words, those who are not within the public service bargaining unit, whether nurses, professional or the public service unit. The government managers are now working a 40-hour week, I believe. They have not had any increase in their pay for three years. I would like to ask what the status is at the moment with respect to the managers within the public service. I don't expect the minister to provide confidential details about the negotiations, but I would like to ask him about the lack of progress in the negotiations with the professional employees. Where does it stand? When is the resolution of it? When is the agreement going to be signed? I understand that the Treasury Board has had their brief for some time. Can you give the House some indication of where that is?

I don't know if the minister is aware, but I've had government employees in Victoria phone me, or just in conversation say: "You know, I had a job with the government. I had 7, 12 or 18 years of service." In some instances they're women. I've had instances where people who were terminated have indicated to me that they could not bring themselves to burnp because they felt — even though they're fully entitled to do that under the collective agreement — that they had adequate resources and they certainly would not take the risk of knocking off a single parent. That's a very tough moral dilemma to put employees in: that they have to sacrifice their whole career. A person is married and the spouse is employed and perhaps in a very insecure position, perhaps subject to a layoff or termination for economic reasons further down the line. In other words, the spouse is not guaranteed employment; there is no guarantee. You know of other individuals, as I'm sure everyone does: people who were in the educational system, on the career stream, who all of sudden lose their position. I'm pointing out to the minister the kind of position it puts people in when they have to bump someone. People anguish over that. It's not something that people are happy about. It's a grievous situation. I would like to know how many times the bumping has been done and how much has been done by auxiliaries.

[3:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would like to know more specifically when the publication of lottery grants issued is to be tabled in this House. It is overdue. The last report filed concerning the allocation of provincial lottery grants was for the first six months of the fiscal year 1982-83, covering the period from March to September 1982. Apparently another report has been prepared and will be printed whenever the minister decides to approve it. What period will this cover, and when will it be made available to this House?

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

[ Page 4012 ]

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

MR. HANSON: You've got them?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've got them.

MR. HANSON: All right. I've got two or three minutes so I'll ask a couple more questions.

As I pointed out, when that minister prioritizes the spending in his budget, a lot of it is for advertising. Let's just take a look at the February B.C. Government News issue on the budget: Restraint Pledge, volume 29, no. 1, of which more than a million were issued. The printing costs alone — not staff time or anything else — were $63,500. The February 1984 issue was mailed to every person in British Columbia, job or no job. They would rather have had the money. It was all propaganda. The mailing cost alone was $80,500 to tell British Columbians what a good job they were doing laying people off. The total cost was $144,000; in a time of restraint, where did the government get $144,000 to print and mail propaganda? At the same time, they took $50 a month off the disabled.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to respond to the questions that have been put to me by the first member for Victoria. The first question that he asked was the matter of the protocol vote and the funds allocated there — I had it tabbed here until such time as he started asking me about the government information services. The member said that a quarter of a million dollars more was allocated, and he is absolutely correct in that respect. There has been $100,000 allocated for the papal visit to British Columbia this coming September, and $143,000 is essentially because of the disbandment....

I don't know if the member wants my answers or not.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think those answers were very comprehensive; in fact they were totally inadequate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What did I say?

MR. HANSON: Very little. What about melding GERB and the Public Service Commission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I took my seat because the member was busy in a conversation. I'm wondering if he's asking questions because he wants information or just to make cheap political statements.

On his question about protocol, the member said there was an additional $250,000 allocated to that budget this year. There is $243,047 in additional funds allocated there, of which $100,000 is for the papal visit to British Columbia in September; $143,047 is because of the disbandment of the ministry's information services, the melding of it with the government information services and the transfer to this particular vote of the three permanent and six summer tour guides for the Parliament Buildings. That makes up the additional allocation for protocol.

On the question of melding the Public Service Commission and the Government Employees' Relations Bureau, it's a situation which essentially takes place in the private sector, as most employers have their personnel and labour or industrial relations as one unit in their organization. That is essentially what we are going to be doing. This kind of approach is one which will guarantee the merit principle being retained. I think it will be advantageous for the government's cost efficiencies, and it will be a better unit for bargaining by the government. I don't really want to discuss that too lengthily today, because I propose to bring forward legislation dealing with the amalgamation of these two government services, at which time we will have ample opportunity to fully discuss the wisdom or lack of wisdom, as some people might consider it, of this amalgamation.

Yes, GERB is in virtually constant negotiation with the B.C. Government Employees' Union on a variety of issues, addressing some of the contracting out that is being proposed by various ministries of government. Whether GERB has been negotiating with the BCGEU regarding the various services that members brought to the floor, such as the contracting out of the sheriff services, is one issue I am unable to address at this time.

The question of safety in the prisons. That is an issue that will be addressed by each and every ministry that is involved in the question of any contracting out that might take place. That's an issue that will be raised with the ministry under the provisions of the collective agreement. There's no suggestion that there'll be any less safety through the contracting-out process.

On the question of numbers of employees, I mentioned a little earlier on a point of order that the establishment size is determined by Treasury Board. The numbers are allocated to each and every ministry of government. The ministry is involved in assuring that the standards, terms and conditions are maintained — those that are provided for in the collective agreement. We ensure that there is fair and equitable treatment of the public servants of British Columbia.

On the question of bumping, you might also take into consideration that the BCGEU was very supportive; in fact, it proposed that a bumping provision be put in place. They advocated very strongly that seniority rights and bumping privileges go along with seniority rights. So that's one of the issues that was resolved, and on which the government bargaining arm, GERB, really went along with the union. There was a strong feeling by the BCGEU that bumping should only take place among the auxiliary employees of government with less than three years' service.

There is a complicated, convoluted mechanism in place addressing the issue of bumping, one with which I am sure the officers of the BCGEU are very familiar. I have been so close to it that I understand the system fairly well, but a layman who is not involved in these kinds of contractual arrangements might find it complicated. It's one which works fairly effectively. You say there is distress on the part of some people regarding the question of bumping. Sometimes bumping is a matter of survival. I know that as a young man, when I worked on the railroad, unless I did a little bit of bumping from time to time, I had to go to the United States and work on American railroads, The only employment provision on a temporary basis that I ever had when I worked on the railroad in those days was that I could work for six months when they were moving the wheat for Europe through to Halifax instead of through the Great Lakes. The rest of the year I had to use the bumping privileges that were there through the collective agreement, or go to the United States of America and work on American railroads, which I did on numerous occasions.

We sent a note out to the chairman of the Public Service Commission to give us the information you are seeking on

[ Page 4013 ]

the number of bumps that have taken place. We don't have the precise number. We know that in some instances a fair number of auxiliaries do leave the service. We don't know what the time-frame is, but 328 auxiliaries have left the government service. No, I'd better not give you any figures now. Figures will be flowing in. If my estimates are not through, I make a commitment to you that I will give you those precise figures. If my estimates are through before the information flows to me, I want to tell you this: you can put the question on the order paper, and I promise to answer it within 48 hours.

MR. HANSON: Or will you resign your seat?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, you see, I can't make that commitment to you because I might not check the order paper, and the question might sit there for 48 hours, and I'd have to resign my seat if I didn't reach down and look at the order paper. But I'll resign my seat from the time I see it on the order paper until such time as I deliver an answer, yes.

The next question, on the subject of government managers. I don't think this is the appropriate place to be doing the bargaining as far as the government managers are concerned. They're in the process of negotiating with GERB at this time, so I'll leave it at that. There is a termination of an agreement and negotiations are taking place — probably not in a speedy fashion, but they're still negotiating.

On the question of the lottery report, I would have to check just what the status of that report is. The last time I talked to the director of the lotteries — but not on that occasion — he indicated to me that he is in the process of putting together a report. I want to assure you that I'm anxious to show the people of British Columbia where their betting dollars have been placed to the benefit of all British Columbians.

[4:00]

MR. KEMPF: I'm sure happy to hear those last remarks of the minister, because I've been after that report for a number of weeks, if not months, and the minister, to say the least, has been very elusive. It's very good to hear today that that report will soon be forthcoming.

I want to talk about two particular aspects of the minister's administrative duties this afternoon, both of which have a very real effect on the northern communities I serve, their projects, and the services they get.

The first subject is the allocation of lottery funds. As I said before, I have attempted for some time now to obtain some response to my question as to where lottery funds are being allocated, how much money is in the fund, how much money was in the fund as of January 31, 1984, how much money went into that fund during the 1983-84 fiscal year, and exactly why it is that all of the applications for lottery funds — I shouldn't say "all"; I should say "most of " — from my constituency don't seem to meet the guidelines. If those guidelines are such as to not accept applications from small rural communities of this province, why aren't they being changed? Time after time I am told by the Ministry of Provincial Secretary that applications from clubs and groups in the area which I have the responsibility for in this chamber cannot, for one reason or another, be accepted because of the guidelines. There have been requests for $18,000, $10,000, $3,000, $3,300, $17,000 — request after request, with a number of reasons for turndown: because it's an RFAP project; because in this case an application for a wilderness camp is turned down because there are too many camps of that sort in British Columbia; because the camp is profit-oriented and poorly attended; or because the fund doesn't give operational funding in this case to a figure skating club.

Mr. Chairman, during the hours and days ahead I intend to go into each of these applications individually so this House has no doubt in their mind as to why the applications were made, how much they were for and what their purpose was. Application after application was turned down because they did not meet the guidelines of the Lottery Fund, which is receiving, as I understand it, more and more dollars monthly from those willing to gamble and buy tickets out there. I have some very serious concerns about that. I have some very serious concerns as to the numbers of dollars going from this fund to southern projects, once again leaving the northern rural areas of this province holding the bag.

There was a time when these kinds of small applications were accepted by the Lottery Fund. Granted, many of them fell into the category of the recreational facilities assistance program. Granted, that program was done away with. But at the same time as that program was done away with, which incidentally got its money from the Lottery Fund, additional moneys to the tune of millions and millions of dollars were allocated from that same fund to fund huge projects in southern British Columbia. Don't get me wrong and don't get my constituents wrong: certainly we support projects such as B.C. Place, because we are also proud British Columbians. When time after time after time very worthwhile projects asking for a mere pittance from this Lottery Fund are turned down in these small rural communities, then I must have some suspicion as to the numbers of dollars going into these large projects in the urban areas of this province. Granted, the objects of some of the applications made under the Lottery Fund by groups and organizations in my community are a bit abnormal. Their needs are different. Certainly the small rural communities have different needs than do cities such as Vancouver or Victoria. Consequently, their reasons for applying to the Lottery Fund are different — drastically different in many cases. Nevertheless, there's a need.

In 1983-84 the recreational facilities assistance program was done away with. In the last year of its operation, $10.5 million came from the Lottery Fund for that program. That $10.5 million was disbursed throughout this province, and it did a world of good funding projects in the small communities such as the ones in my constituency. But since the inauguration of Lotto 6-49 and the earmarking of that money for Expo 86, the fund has virtually dried up as far as projects in my constituency are concerned — and, I would suspect, as far as projects are concerned in many other rural areas of this province. Large lump sums of money have been earmarked from the Lottery Fund for these southern projects, not just Expo 86 but others. I would like to know what those projects are and how much money has been earmarked for them. Without an accounting of the lottery fund program, which we have not had for a number of months in this province, it's absolutely impossible to find out how much that is. Mr. Chairman, I don't accept the responses which I've received to my questions. They are very simple questions: the number of dollars received by the fund; a list of where this money is being spent; and dollars remaining in the fund. I get responses such as this. I'll read a part of this letter.

[ Page 4014 ]

"While you do not define what you mean by 'rural communities' in your most recent series of memoranda, earlier communications between yourself and previous Provincial Secretaries have talked of the disparity in grants between communities to the north and south of a line drawn through Cache Creek. Assuming this is still your dividing line, a generous compilation of population figures gives 374,382 or 13.6 percent of the provincial population to the 'rural' areas from Cache Creek north and 86.4 percent or 2,370,085 people south of that line. Investigating applications received from the start of this fiscal year to January 24, 1984, we find that of the 324 applications so far dealt with, 65 came from your rural areas. Twenty-three or 35.3 percent were approved, and 42 or 64.7 percent were rejected. The total dollars approved amounts to 28 percent of the total committed during the period, remembering that the population is 13.6 percent of the provincial total."

Mr. Chairman, to suggest that lottery funds should be allocated on the basis of a per capita figure is absolutely ridiculous. If we are to follow that to the furthest, I would suggest that the minister go one step further to find out where the majority of the money comes from for the sale of these tickets in British Columbia. If we're going to do it on a per capita basis, let's do it properly. I think you would find out, because of the fact that the people living in the rural area of this province are naturally greater gamblers, that a lion's share of those tickets are sold in those areas. To base lottery fund grants on a per capita basis is preposterous. If that's what you are going to do, let's base everything else on a return to the area where the money for the provincial coffers of this province came from. I think you would find the rural areas of this province going begging for funds if you did that, because the lion's share of the revenues that flow into provincial coffers in this province come from that line north of Cache Creek and not the urban areas of this province.

[4:15]

As I said, I intend to go a lot deeper into this question of lottery funds: how much money is coming in, where it is being spent and how much is left in the fund each month. We in the rural areas of this province are going short when it comes to lottery fund money, and I want some answers so that I can properly report to whose whom I represent why their applications are turned down. If the minister is going to get up and tell me once again, as he has many times in the past, that my applications are turned down because they don't meet the guidelines, my next question is going to be: when are those guidelines going to be changed so they are not prejudicial to the people living in the small communities of this province who produce the revenue that keeps this province going?

I want to speak about this and another subject relating to this minister's responsibilities, that of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. But for the moment I would like some answers to my questions relating to the Lottery Fund.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's always nice to respond to the management of the lottery grants. I don't want to start out and list all the various projects or recreational facilities and the allocation of funds at this time, because it would take too long. At no time have I ever suggested, for instance, that the allocation of these funds should be on a per capita basis. At no time have I ever suggested that there should be the allocation of these funds from the areas that produce the wealth in British Columbia as well. I think we have a responsibility, in the administration of these funds, to ensure that they're widely disbursed to various regions of the province on the basis of needs and on the basis of applications as well. If you don't get an application in from a particular constituency, it cannot be addressed. So there are some certain constituencies that don't send the same number of applications that are generated from other constituencies, and that in many instances determines the allocation of these funds.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, the NDP. Well, we never at any time.... The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) suggests that if he were government there would be cheap politics involved in the allocation of these funds on the basis of representation in this House. That has never happened, Mr. Member, as long as I've had the administrative responsibility of allocating these funds, based on the guidelines in place at this time.

Needless to say, we have to have guidelines, whether the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) accepts it or not. If someone has a profit-oriented enterprise and made an application for a lottery grant, would the NDP fund that project?

MR. ROSE: No.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The NDP have just responded that the answer is no. There's a need for some guidelines, and any endeavour, whether it's very profitable or a money-losing proposition, if it's not a non-profit society, shouldn't be funded by lotteries. We have established guidelines, and that's the thing the member for Omineca is unwilling to accept. There are only one or maybe two of his applications that have been turned down in recent years, because these have been other than non-profit societies. For the other applications that have been turned down, I'm very sympathetic and would like to help, but at this time there is a moratorium on the recreational facilities assistance program, and with a moratorium in place, needless to say we aren't able to allocate any funds for projects that do qualify under the guidelines. I want to say that the majority of the applications that have come from Omineca are projects that essentially do qualify, but don't qualify because of the moratorium. That's something that has to be recognized. That's where his major problem lies: the moratorium. Unless he's got a friend up in the bush who wants to have a wilderness camp to try to make a buck with lottery funds that I think should go to other projects, I don't know what the argument is.

I think I've pretty well answered most of the questions that have been put by the member. The funds are allocated on the basis of application, and the funds are widely disbursed for provincially important projects that are put forward by non-profit societies, municipalities and such organizations.

MR. KEMPF: It's very interesting to hear the minister say that he's never suggested that Lottery Fund grants should be allocated on a per capita basis. Mr. Chairman, I guess I was reluctant to say that the figures I gave and the memorandum I was quoting from just a few minutes ago was dated February 29. It's signed by James R. Chabot, minister. If you want me to read it into the record again, it makes it very clear

[ Page 4015 ]

that the minister suggests that Lottery Fund grant applications be allocated on a per capita basis — on a line drawn through Cache Creek.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you're saying I said that, read it into the record.

MR. KEMPF: I read it into the record already, Mr. Minister.

We talk about applications being turned down because they aren't non-profit. This application is from Mr. Allan Bush of the Tezzeron Wilderness Camp. Certainly Mr. Bush is no friend of mine; I had never heard of the gentleman before receiving a letter from him asking that I support his application.

Prior to receiving a printout showing how many applications were actually turned down in Omineca.... It is not, as the minister says, a very few. I can read that list into the record as well, if we wish.

For this moment, I'd just like to zero in on the application by Tezzeron Wilderness Camp. I was given a reason for the turndown in a letter from the minister dated August 11, 1983. In the printout I received just recently in answer to my February 2 letter, I found out that it was turned down because it wasn't a non-profit organization. The reason I was given back in August 1983 was: "It appears from all that we have been able to discover that Tezzeron Wilderness Camp is run by an individual. It therefore does not qualify for assistance from the start." You bet it was run by an individual. I have the total application right here. I want to read into the record of this House what the application represented and what it was for.

First, I'd like to read into the record that the application was for a mere $5,000 for a total cost project of $10,000 — 50 percent of the total project. Sure, it was for items that probably seem oddball to bureaucrats sitting in Victoria, but there are very real needs to these people on Stuart Lake in Fort St. James in my constituency. The application and moneys were to go towards the purchase of six canoes, five dozen paddles, five dozen life-jackets, one aluminium boat and five nylon tents. It's a terrible application! These items were to be used for a summer camp for young children. It may be an oddball application as far as Victoria is concerned, but it certainly isn't an oddball application as far as I'm concerned on behalf of those whom I represent and this gentleman whom I'd never heard of before. It's not an oddball application at all — $5,000 from a multimillion-dollar fund, from which multimillions of dollars are being poured into urban Vancouver.

Again I say that I'm a proud British Columbian. I support those kinds of projects, but I want our fair share of the pie, however small or large that pie may be. By God, we're taking the short end of the stick in the north. I've got a pile here, Mr. Chairman, that are going to last me three or four days. If these kinds of projects are turned down — an application for $5,000 for paddles, life-jackets and tents for a summer camp for kids — I've really got to ask about the guidelines under which these lottery funds are allocated. Application after application: assistance for a public library; assistance for a skating club — that application was for $3,000, and I'll read that into the record in due course as well.

I'd like the minister to reconsider the answers that he gave to my questions in relation to the facts, and I'll give him just a little time to respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll recognize the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I thought the member for Omineca had concluded his remarks.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, no, never.

MR. HOWARD: I realize never, but I thought he had temporarily concluded, Mr. Chairman.

It looks like the minister is going to have ample time to get the answers to the questions that were posed to him earlier. By the sound of things he won't have to look forward to reading the order paper to find they've been written for him.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose the appropriate name for this ministry could be the Ministry of Grease, because this is the ministry that assists....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The mellifluous ministry. How's that?

This is the ministry that has within it something called government information services. That's the official title on the book before us. That's the $20 million, in rough figures.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pretty rough. That's $1.1 million out.

[4:30]

MR. HOWARD: Let's take the amount out of the estimates book — and we see that it is $18,915,859 to March 31, 1985. Add to that....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order. I want to give the member for Omineca his answer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will be ample opportunity, Mr. Minister, when the member for Skeena has finished.

MR. HOWARD: Add to that some salaries which are not included in this vote, and some subject matters of financing that are in the Premier's office, and we find a total of $20,495,750 — not under this vote, but available for advertising and public relations spending. That's why I took the rough figure of $20 million.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

To be conservative about it — and just so that I don't entice the minister to get into a discussion of figures and fine details, rather than a discussion of principle and function — we'll deal with the figure that's in the estimates book: $18,915,859 available for propaganda. Also, given the fact that that $18,915,859 is an increase over what the estimate was for last year, it is a plus. The amount of money has been added to. They said that all other ministries, except Health, declined in allocation of funds. Not so with this thing called government information services. Who does the minister think he is? Bill Ritchie? We went through that the other day, and it ended up that the amount of money allocated was up. The amount of money in the estimates for the coming fiscal year, ending March 31, 1985 is an increase over the amount of money in the estimates for 1983-84, The minister keeps

[ Page 4016 ]

shaking his head, saying no. But I'm only taking the figures out of the book. I'm not adjusting any figures at all. I'm just simply reading from the estimates of 1983-84, which this Legislature passed.

For government information services last year the amount in the estimates was $17,861 018. This year the estimate is $18,915,859. A very rough calculation of that shows it to be an increase of more than a million dollars for propaganda. So while there are curtailments and cutbacks and the poor member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) can't get an approval for $5,000 out of the lottery fund for kids at Fort St. James, which I understood him to say was the proposal for six canoes and 60 paddles, or whatever it was that he wanted.... While he can't get $5,000 approved for that, the ministry has gone ahead and socked in an additional $1,100,000 into the estimates for the government information services. I'd suggest to the member for Omineca that maybe he should become friends with Doug Heal. You might be able to employ an advertising agency to tell people how good things are.

It is incongruous that while money is not available for worthwhile ventures such as those advanced by the member for Omineca, they're available for propaganda. They're available for slick television advertising. They're available for this government to propagandize, to advertise itself and, before May of last year, to advertise Social Credit in an inferential way. They reached into the taxpayers' pockets for a large amount of money — around a million dollars — to engage in a television advertising program to advance the interests of Social Credit. The taxpayers paid for that. That's why I identified that perhaps the ministry is misnamed as Provincial Secretary. It's involved in politics up to its ears, and the government information services is in the forefront or the spearhead of that activity. Ever since Doug Heal came on the scene he's been involved in politics. The first thing the government did was hire his firm to make a recommendation as to who should be hired for government information officer. Lo and behold, his firm recommended that he be hired. That's the essence of what happened. And the government hired him. No sooner did he get on the payroll than he ended up at Harrison Lake at a Social Credit conference. We tried our best to find out from this current minister what that was all about — was that politics? They just hid from that question.

It's not that gentleman, Mr. Heal himself — it's this government that's really involved. He's just the tool carrying out the wishes of the Premier and this government about propagandizing. He's just the agency. He may be a willing agency or an unwilling one; it's immaterial. He's just the technician, doing what he's told, which is basically to propagandize to the tune of $18.9 million, an increase over last year's estimates of about $1.1 million.

Attempts have been made to find out information about that. I know the minister is very open and forthright in his declarations that he just loves to answer questions. I listen attentively for those answers sometimes, Mr. Chairman, and I don't hear the answers. But I know the minister's declaration is that he loves to answer questions. A number of questions about expenditures were put to him during the last session. Written questions — not ones asked orally in the House — were put on the order paper and were allowed to die there. The minister refused to even bother providing any kind of answer to those questions. He couldn't bestir himself to provide the general public with information as to what's happening within the ministry of propaganda.

There were questions that just said: "What was the total cost of production of the B.C. lotteries' ALRT series of television advertising in 1982 and 1983?" The question was ignored. "What is the cost of production of" — the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) would be interested in this — "the B.C. lotteries' Expo 86 series of television advertisements aired during 1982-83?" That question rested, languished and died on the order paper, killed by the minister. He refused to answer, refused to tell the general public about those types of costs. At least to the member for Omineca the minister writes letters and tells him why he can't get any money out of the lottery side of things. But here, when we're talking in terms of millions of dollars of propaganda money on television, there's not a whisper from the minister about that information.

"What was the cost of production of the B.C. lotteries' health care series of television advertisements aired during 1982 and 1983?" That's another legitimate question that the people of the province should have the answer to — ignored. "What was the cost of production of the 'B.C. Reports' series of television advertisements aired during 1982-83?" Another question was allowed to die. "What was the cost of the production of the TRAC series of television advertisements aired during 1982 and 1983?" That question was ignored.

They were questions seeking to find from the minister what his propaganda agency did with the taxpayers' money. How much did it spend on these things? That's all they were seeking — accountability, openness. Declarations — oh, he's waving some book in his hands there — of the minister saying he just loves to answer questions ring pretty hollow in the face of the facts, when it comes to questions about what his propaganda agency, otherwise known as government information services, did with something in the neighbourhood of $30 million roughly over the two-year period we're talking about. What does it contemplate doing with $18.9 million in this coming fiscal year? I think, seriously, that when we get to that particular vote there would appear to be no alternative but for us to object to the estimate and cast our vote against it, partly because the proof exists that it has been used for propaganda purposes seeking to advance the interests of a particular political party but paid for by the general public. Many words come to mind that I'm sure would be unparliamentary, no matter how judiciously or delicately phrased, identifying what this sort of chicanery is all about.

I hope that will at least afford the minister some opportunity to answer now those questions that he ignored and refused to answer before.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I don't happen to have the answers in my back pocket, but the member makes a very good point. I guess with my preoccupation with other matters more pressing in the last parliament I didn't have a chance to address those issues on the order paper. But I make it my business to attempt to answer questions, and all I can say to the member is that if he really wants the answer — unless he only wants to attempt to embarrass the government by suggestions and innuendos.... If that's the case, maybe he'd better not put the questions on the order paper again. The questions, as the member has suggested, have essentially died because of the lack of answering. I suggest to the member that he resurrect them and put them on the order paper again, and we'll see whether we can get that information for you. We'll do our best.

[ Page 4017 ]

[4:45]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, it's an agreeable course of action, and I'm not objecting to it. But if I were to do that I would be costing the taxpayer more money because of the paper involved and the printers who have to be paid to print them up so that they appear on the order paper. I would suggest to the minister that I have just read those questions word for word as they were in the written form during the last session. They're in Hansard. All you have to do, Mr. Minister, is read Hansard, or get somebody to read it for you — whatever you like. On the basis of that you can provide the answers, and then we don't have to waste any more taxpayers' money by putting questions on the order paper. They're there in Hansard, and I have great confidence that the reporting staff and the editors at Hansard will have them down precisely word for word as they were in their written form. I have no doubt that the minister.... He's not now preoccupied with those things that he said he was preoccupied with before. If the minister will just pick up Hansard.... In fact, he could have somebody in his ministry put a mark alongside the questions for him and say, "Mr. Minister, this is the question that was posed." He would be able to see the question in written form and provide the answer, and it won't cost the taxpayers any more money.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it's the first reasonable suggestion I've had from the member. He's concerned about the taxpayers' money, and I would like to give him one other suggestion as well. The member for Skeena has a tendency to be long-winded and use ten words when one will do. The only thing I can say is: attempt to reform, change your ways, and then it won't be necessary for people to burn the midnight oil, burn the lights, do the typing and burn up the paper as well for all the extra words that you use. We'll save more taxpayers' money that way. It's just a little recommendation that I'm making to the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: The minister is very perceptive, and he puts forward an argument which would appear to have some sense to it on the surface. But he should appreciate that the reason I use ten words instead of one for this particular minister is that you have to repeat things for him so many, many times for him to grasp the significance. One word wouldn't do with him. Repetition is necessary to take account of the level of appreciation that the minister has of complex points such as: when are you going to answer those questions?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I too want to get back to questions and answers. I really do hope that the minister doesn't think that I am trying to embarrass anybody — the government, the minister or anyone else. I just want to know, and I'm going to stay here as long as it takes to find out, why northerners are getting short-changed in relation to the lottery fund. I haven't heard answers to my questions, Mr. Chairman, and they're very simple. How many dollars were received in the fund in the last 12 months? Where is the list of the money that has been spent out of the fund in the last 12 months? Earlier the minister said that we were going to get that list. Then I guess the next question is: when are we going to get that list? The third question: how many dollars were there remaining in the fund as of December 31, 1983? They're very simple questions.

I would also like to know how much money is being spent from the fund each month on large urban projects in the lower mainland of this province. I want to know why there continues to be a moratorium on the recreation facilities assistance program. Funds for that program — when it was funded — came out of lottery fund moneys. Why is there still a moratorium when the total sales of lottery tickets are up? I have here a rundown on sales of Lotto 6-49 tickets between June 1982 and February 1984. Lotto 6-49 sales have been very brisk, which leads me to believe that there are even more dollars going into the fund now than there were 12 months ago. So the question is: when I'm given the excuse time after time that an application can't be considered because it doesn't meet the guidelines, and as it is in fact an REAP application, why is there still a moratorium on the recreation facilities assistance program?

Mr. Chairman, I intend to stay here as long as it takes to get the answers to those questions, because I want to say before everyone in this chamber that I have tried desperately in the last five months, on behalf of those whom I represent, to get those answers, and I have not been able to do so. It's my responsibility to do that.

The minister talked about the reasons for turning down applications. I would like to read into the record another application made by a group called the New Caledonia Dancers in a little community called Fort St. James in my constituency. I'd like to read you the reasons for them wanting the grant. I have in my hand a copy of the actual application. They write this under the heading "What is the Purpose for this Grant?" I quote: "The New Caledonia Dancers is a very young club in Fort St. James. Our goal is to give the children of our community the opportunity to learn tap, ballet and jazz dancing. We feel we will benefit approximately 80 children. We are applying for a grant through the Lottery Fund in order to purchase mirrors, ballet bars and mats." The application was for $3,000. Three thousand dollars to benefit 80 young people in the community of Fort St. James out of a multimillion dollar fund, out of which is coming $20 million a year for the next five years for Expo 86. You screw up your face, Mr. Minister, for us, but this is true. This is absolutely true!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're not a competent MLA.

MR. KEMPF: You're saying I'm not a competent MLA. Can I read that into the record, Mr. Minister of Forests? I'd be happy to, on behalf of the some 14,000 people that I represent in this chamber. I'd be proud to read that into the record.

MR. BLENCOE: Cross the floor.

MR. KEMPF: I'd cross the floor, but there's no place to go, Mr. Member for Victoria.

I'll tell you something. Out of this fund that's collecting.... I don't know how much it's collecting. I can't get the answers to my questions. But I would suggest it's in excess of $60 million a year. Out of this fund we can't get $3,000 to benefit 80 children in one of my small communities. You say the north isn't taking the short end of the stick. Mr. Chairman, I rest my case. I've got lots more to say, but let's give somebody else a chance.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member was asking just what kind of estimated revenue there is from the Lottery Fund. I

[ Page 4018 ]

think if you look at the estimate book on page 231 you'd find the answer. It's a matter of public record.

The member seems to hold some bias against the expenditure of lottery funds in the lower mainland. I'm a rural member as well, and I don't hold that particular bias. Applications are approved on the basis of meeting the guidelines and on the basis of applications flowing. The member never really did tell us whether there's going to be a fee for the people going to the ballet dancing studio that is going to be established in Fort St. James with mirrors and ballet bars they want to buy. Is he asking for an operating grant, or is this capital? It is my belief that it's capital and that there will be a charge for those people participating in that particular endeavour. I want to say that we do not allocate lottery grants for profit-oriented enterprises. That is essentially what this is, and those canoes with ten paddles per canoe are the same thing as well. If he will tell me that the applicant never identified his intention of charging those young people going into the summer camp on Stuart Lake, then he has a different application. But it's my understanding that the application for this capital expenditure involves an application from an individual who wants to charge those youngsters, so it's profit-oriented. Whether or not it will be profitable is another issue. But the information we have at the moment and the reason it was turned down is that it is profit-oriented.

I guess I rest my case too.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, that really is interesting. We've now thrown a new curve into the applications for Lottery Fund projects in this province. I can remember funds being allocated to a number of projects in this province. There were a couple in my own constituency in years gone by. One was to pave a skating rink where, when flooded, fees were charged to skate; one was to build a community hall where fees were charged for certain do's carried on in that hall. It was made quite clear — I'll read again from the application — that the moneys asked for from the Lottery Fund were to buy equipment. It had nothing to do with fees. Certainly fees are charged those young children, and for good reason. I read from the application: "Once we have purchased mats, ballet bars and mirrors, the children's season's fees will pay for the teacher. I can't see us having any other major expense." All that the $3,000 was to do was to get this club on the map; to give them the opportunity to provide that kind of culture, which we don't have much of in the northern part of this province, and to allow 80 children to partake of those kinds of lessons. If that's a money-making scheme, I've really got to ask some more serious questions.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'll get away for a moment from particular applications. I have another pet peeve as far as the provincial Lottery Fund is concerned, and that is the situation where recently we as government removed the possibility of distribution of tickets by charitable groups and organizations — groups that used the money from selling lottery tickets to do many more good things in the small communities of this province. I want to read into the record what the policy of cutting out that distribution has done to just one individual in this province. A letter I received very recently from Port Edward says: "In the case of the Port Edward Lions Club, this government control made our agent, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, an unemployable social assistance recipient." The sale of those tickets by that Lions Club provided this fellow with employment, as well as providing that club with a means by which to raise money that they could plough back into the community. That money now goes to the Western Canada Lotteries Foundation in Winnipeg, not to groups and individuals in our own province. It was perceived that these agents were incompetent.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: For what other reason then, Mr. Minister, did we make that change? Did we acquiesce to the wishes of the east? It certainly hasn't helped British Columbians. It certainly hasn't helped clubs such as the Lions Club in Port Edward in British Columbia. It has taken away their means to raise money for their community. Not only that; I would suggest that in many areas it has cut down on the sale of lottery tickets in small communities. These people really went out and did a job of it. They were really interested in what they were doing. They were interested in doing good things in their community. The more tickets they sold, the more they could do. I think it was a catastrophe to take that ability to earn money for their communities away from them. I'd like to hear the minister's reasoning for having done that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the mechanism of lottery ticket distribution was put in place some considerable time before I became the minister in charge of the lotteries. First of all, I guess what caused the change in the distribution was the fact that the banks decided to stop distribution of lottery tickets. That imposed a tremendous burden on the lottery program and its ability to distribute tickets. Without the banks in place as a central distributor, we had a serious problem. I guess that's what predicated my predecessor to attempt to put in a different distribution system.

I might say that there has been a tremendous growth in the lottery business as well. Online machines have been put in place, which is now a separate and distinct thing handled by the Western Canada Lottery Foundation. The distribution centre operates out of Richmond. The lotteries really are not the same kind of business they were some considerable years ago. You're talking about a lottery business now where you're dealing with gross revenues of about $125 million a year. You're dealing with big business now.

I sympathize with the service clubs and the revenue that it did generate. There are many instances when services clubs couldn't possibly handle the kind of growth in business that has taken place in recent years. For a considerable time we have as a government continued to pay these lottery distributors — these service clubs throughout British Columbia — their percentage, even though they were not actively involved in the distribution of lottery tickets. Even though the distribution of lottery tickets was a diminishing responsibility for them, we've continued to pay them their 6 percent. For instance, the Lions Club of Port Edwards last year, under the guaranteed.... I don't know what their activity was as far as distribution is concerned; maybe they're completely out of the distribution business. That's quite conceivable. We paid that Lions Club $20,763 under the 6 percent guarantee that we've honoured — and extended for some considerable period of time. So we recognize the plight of various service clubs who have come to rely on a certain revenue from the distribution of lottery tickets.

[ Page 4019 ]

However, we also have to recognize the fact that we do have a distribution system in place and the day will come, I guess, when we'll have to phase out this guarantee that we've put in place for the various service clubs. However, we believe that we have an obligation to the service clubs that have served this lottery business very well over the formative years. We haven't put the program in place. There have been some preliminary discussions of assisting those clubs that need financial assistance.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, to follow up on the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I may not agree with all his comments and requests, but there's one thing I agree with and that's his sense of frustration that he was expressing to you. I think I know exactly how he feels, because out there people do say to me: "You know, we understand the government takes in millions of dollars in lottery revenues, but what do they do with it?"

I know it's here, but I have a suggestion for the minister. I can see that you expect over $50 million to be taken in for the coming year. That's a lot of money. I have no quarrel with the way in which you have committees set up to hand out the grants on medical research, etc. But as the minister knows, Mr. Chairman, I have quarrelled and differed for many years with the Social Credit government about the way in which they keep the handling of these special funds behind the minister's door. I think the member for Omineca probably finds that somewhat frustrating. I'm referring to the fact that you do not have an independent granting committee. Basically, aside from medical research and the other ones listed in the act — cultural grants, etc. — you still have a large pool of money which is dispensed from lottery funds. I know you have guidelines, and you've been trying to explain those. But the point is that I still think you could spare yourself, as a minister — and I'm only here to assist you in that — a lot of problems if you were prepared to take it away and put it into the hands of some independent grant commission. Then none of us would even have any right to stand up and accuse you, Mr. Minister, at any time of being partisan. I have no specific cases to accuse you of, but I'm saying to you that you could be much more than appearing above suspicion if you took our suggestion for an independent committee. So my question to you — instead of carrying this on too long — is to ask, for about the eighth year in a row, if the Social Credit government will consider giving the opportunity for an independent grants commission to decide how these grants should be allocated, and to whom.

The second point I want to bring up to the minister is that when the critic was speaking earlier this afternoon about the B.C. Government News, he expressed concern, as we all do on this side of the House, that it has turned into a strictly partisan piece of political propaganda for the government.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I won't accept that.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister always shakes his head and says he won't accept it, and yet we all know that the last edition of the B.C. Government News dealing with the budget was strictly slanted as to how marvellous the budget was, according to the viewpoint of the Social Credit government. I ask the minister how he can possibly say that that newspaper is not being used for partisan purposes when it doesn't give the opposition a chance to express their view. We weren't quoted there. None of our remarks in Hansard in opposition to the budget were given an opportunity to be placed in that magazine. The money that you're using for that newspaper is not yours....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MRS. DAILLY: You agree with me there? Well, if it's not your money, then what right do you have to use it? That's a direct question. What right do you have to use it just for your own purposes?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member has made a variety of suggestions, but time won't allow me to elaborate on all the mechanisms and impartial committees that are out there recommending to me how lottery funds will be dispensed. We have a great variety of advisory boards — the library advisory board, the Arts Board, and so forth — that are there as an umbrella. They are looking after their own unique interests, of course; I recognize that.

However, the member makes some recommendations, and what she's really talking about is a very few dollars of the whole lottery fund. You are probably talking about how the recreational facilities assistance program dollars are allocated. There has never been any political treatment of those funds. I've never at any time looked at an application and said: "Oh, that's from an NDP riding, to heck with it." If those applications come to me and meet the guidelines, then I address them. I don't care which riding they come from, and I'll continue to do it that way.

On the question of B.C. Government News, I think that from time to time the government has the responsibility of informing the people of this province as to how their tax dollars are being spent. I know the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) was suggesting that we would be better off sending that money back to the people rather than dispensing it as we did. It's just a guesstimate on my part, as I don't know the precise figure, but we would probably have sent back between 30 cents and 40 cents to every man, woman and child in British Columbia. But to some people the information conveyed in the B.C. Government News was far more informative and beneficial than the 30 cents or 40 cents which we could have sent back to them. A lot of people are very happy to receive the B.C. Government News and to know precisely where their tax dollars are being spent. I think the cost, in the vicinity of $100,000, is insignificant when one looks at the fact that we're informing people of how their tax dollars — in excess of $8 billion — are going to be spent. The member suggests that it is conveyed in a very partisan way. I don't know. She was part of a government for three and one-third years a long time ago, and yet she hasn't even got white hair yet.

MRS. DAILLY: Are you kidding? It's almost there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, it's underneath?

I remember those dim days in British Columbia very well when I sat over there in opposition, and I never recall the NDP ever suggesting that we had the right to put our point of view across in the B.C. Government News.

MRS. DAILLY: You never asked.

[ Page 4020 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm sure we did. If we didn't, I'm sure David Anderson asked to have his point of view put across. This is David's old campaign manager.

All we are really doing is attempting to convey where the dollars are being expended. Now because you are in opposition you feel that the opposition should have a point of view. The opposition now has the opportunity of communicating to the people of British Columbia through Hansard. They can express their partisan point of view by mailing out the various sheets of Hansard, where they've given their imperishable words to be preserved for posterity, so that people will have an opportunity to see how eloquent they are when they speak in the House here against this terrible Social Credit government.

[5:15]

I think we have a responsibility. I'm not saying we should send B.C. Government News out on a seasonal basis. It should be sent out from time to time when there's a very important message to convey. The message that was important to convey to the people of British Columbia at this time was the budget.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say about lotteries and how they're granted, and maybe a suggestion for the minister.

First I just want to take a couple of minutes to respond to some of those statements he just made. Times are somewhat different, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. We have the highest unemployment rate in the history of this province, and the highest welfare rates. People are going without. You're saying, well, you can still rationalize spending thousands and millions of dollars on publicity to convince people that you're doing a good job. Politics is about priorities, and your priorities are somewhat in the wrong place. Why spend that kind of money on that kind of advertising, which really is just trying to portray the government in a good light? There was no criticism, no analysis in that B.C. Government News. Times are different. We are in a depression and there are people in need. You should be using that money for handicapped pensions, using that money for food. That's where the money should be going, Mr. Minister, yet you continue to waste taxpayers' money on this kind of venture. It should be stopped immediately.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us how Solidarity spends their money.

MR. BLENCOE: They collect that money; it's not taxpayers' money, Mr. Member. You are squandering taxpayers' money. That minister over there is responsible for squandering millions of taxpayers' dollars. You know it, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. We are on the salary vote of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just think it's time that that minister consider the priorities of his portfolio, and consider that perhaps spending money on blatant partisan political advertising and newspapers is wasting the taxpayers' money. To be serious, there are incredible needs in terms of unemployment and welfare. You could be reallocating those millions of dollars that you continue to spend under Mr. Heal, etc. Put them into unemployment programs. Put them towards some of the welfare problems in this province. That's the sort of thing you should be doing. The government is measured by its compassion and its understanding during a depression, and you're not doing it. Times are different, and you are squandering your money. It is a serious matter. We can all laugh, but it's very serious.

I'd like to get on to this lottery business, Mr. Minister. I'll give you a case, and then I'll give you a proposal which I'm sure you've heard before, but I think it should be reconsidered.

I asked you some time ago — last year in August — to consider a very small grant to the Victoria City Rowing Club. The Victoria City Rowing Club has got some of the best rowers in this country. As a matter of fact, they have the two women who are second and third in the world in women's doubles. They wanted a little bit of money to help buy a new scull so they could compete in the Olympics; $1,500 was all they were asking for. They are world-class rowers, and they should have been given this. There's an opportunity to continue to excel and show that in the province of British Columbia we support such excellent world-class rowers. Unfortunately it would appear, again for political reasons, that they were not given this money, and it's most unfortunate. I know that they have again had to scrimp and save.

The minister is saying they have given them money before. Here was a special case. They nearly lost this scull. They were trying to get ready to go to the Olympics. It was a small request for two of the best rowers in this country; indeed, the women are recognized as world-renowned rowers, and there was no support.

The case I would like to make, Mr. minister, is....

You say you don't make these decisions on political judgments. I don't want to get into disputing that. There is, indeed, a perception that that can happen, perception that you and your advisers are the ones making the decisions. Perhaps to end the criticism and perhaps to take a little heat off you, Mr. Minister, perhaps there's a better way to do it. Why don't you consider setting up an independent jury — a group not associated with government, similar to the Canada Council kind of jury? I'm not talking about the Canada Council mechanism; I'm talking about the concept of how you award money independent of your ministry. That might end some of the criticism or the perception that it is a political pork-barrel. I happen to feel that some of those accusations are not far off the mark.

So let's end the opportunity to pork-barrel with lotteries. Set up an independent jury, one appointed, if you will, by a committee of this House — agreed-upon members. They could scrutinize applications and allocate money based on need and geographical location, not on other kinds of criteria — i.e., political pressure or whose riding it is in. An independent jury separate from government and I think the perception that it's a pork-barrel kind of operation would disappear. We're talking about a lot of money. More and more groups are in need, and I don't think it should be subject to possible pork-barrelling and influence-peddling.

What do you think of an independent jury, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I want to say that I don't know about that specific application which the member has brought to my attention.

[ Page 4021 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asks why. We get roughly 10,000 to 15,000 applications from various organizations in British Columbia. I know that this little minister here.... Is it all right to call myself a little minister, Mr. Chairman? They objected when I called the second member for Victoria a little member. It's okay if I call myself that. Okay.

I couldn't possibly address all those applications. Those applications like the one you have made reference to.... I don't know how old your correspondence is.

MR. BLENCOE: I talked to you about it personally.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We might have helped him, because we've given a substantial amount of financial assistance for people who will be participating in the Olympics in Los Angeles. We might have helped him by now. I don't know how many years it is since you've been in contact with him.

There are guidelines, and a decision on whether or not to give assistance certainly rests in the final instance with the minister. But the recommendations as to whether these applications qualify come from the sports and recreation branch in my ministry. Those people are in constant contact with these types of organizations, and they send a big list over to the minister to be approved. The minister doesn't have that kind of time to go through and scrutinize each and every one of these.

MR. BLENCOE: That's why I said to set up an independent jury.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was talking about a blizzard of paper, and you suggested it was a snow job. Now you're advocating a blizzard of paper again. We don't need that. We think the mechanism of the boards that advise us on various assistance for grants, the reliable public servants who are directly and indirectly involved in the allocations of those lottery grants, are doing a first-class job on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is suggesting that the group that makes decisions in regard to lottery fund grants is doing a bang-up job for the people of British Columbia, I would suggest that it's not for the people living in my constituency.

If I can't get answers to my three simple questions....

I'll read them into the record again. How many dollars were taken into the Lottery Fund in the last 12 months? When can we expect a list of the dollars and those to whom they have been paid out in the last 12 months from the Lottery Fund? How much was remaining in the fund as of the end of December 1983? They are simple questions, Mr. Chairman.

I think we have proven one thing with all of this discussion this afternoon: that it's very apparent that the guidelines pertaining to Lottery Fund applications in this province are totally inadequate when you consider the many hundreds of rural communities in this province. I've brought situations to you — and I'll read another one into the record — of applications in my constituency. Because of the ridiculous guidelines in place, this very small, young figure-skating club couldn't obtain $2, 250 from the Lottery Fund, A multimillion-dollar fund which has allocated $20 million a year for the next five years to Expo 86. The members opposite have voiced their disagreement with Expo 86. I don't disagree with it. I'm a British Columbian the same as people in Vancouver. I think it's a great idea, but I certainly don't think it should be built at the expense of northerners. It's quite apparent to me that that's exactly what's happening.

This application came from the Stuart Lake Figure Skating Club. Under the heading, "What is the purpose for this grant," I read as follows:

"The purpose of this grant is to be applied to the annual interclub competition to be held February 18 and 19, 1984, in Fort St. James. This program is a direct benefit to the following six communities: Vanderhoof, Fraser Lake, Houston, Burns Lake, Granisle and our own community. This competition is geared towards the younger skaters, giving them a chance to compete and meet with other skaters in the area. It is to be hosted by our club this season for our zone. As with any amateur competition, the cost is usually borne by the host club. This is an extremely heavy burden for any club to bear. The direct number of children involved in 'interclub' will be 125."

They're asking for $2,250 to benefit 125 young skaters. This application did not meet the guidelines of the Lottery Fund. I think that proves quite conclusively that those guidelines are inadequate. Those guidelines are prejudicial to the small communities and small clubs in our province. It's high time they were changed. It's overdue that they be changed. My question to the minister, along with the many other questions I've asked, is: when are those guidelines going to be changed so that we can help young children at wilderness camps in the summer, young children in skating clubs who want a measly $2,250? I should say "wanted;" it's passed into history. I'm sure there will be others.

[5:30]

Mr. Chairman, I want to go on to another subject that I want to talk about in this minister's estimates: the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I want to ask several questions in relation to that corporation, which is under this minister's purview. It's a corporation which, incidentally, has 1,083 employees. If you want to know where to cut another 1,100 employees from the civil service of this province, I'd say here's where you can do it, and I'll tell you why. Before I tell you why, there are some questions I'd like to ask the minister.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Why are the rental rates charged by the Buildings Corporation of British Columbia for such facilities as land offices, forestry offices and the like so much higher than like or even newer facilities in the private sector in those same communities? We're going to have a land office moved out of one of the communities in my constituency. I suspect that the reason the office is going to be moved is that it is far too costly to have there. I'll tell you one of the reasons why it's costly: because that land office, through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, is being charged almost triple the rent that could be obtained in that very same community in the private sector. The rate being paid to the B.C. Buildings Corporation by that office is $16.50 a square foot. Three blocks away, in a community where there are 8,000 square feet of empty space in the private sector right now — brand-new space — you

[ Page 4022 ]

could get that facility for $6.50 a square foot. My question is: Why are the rental rates of the B.C. Buildings Corporation triple that of the private sector in the same community? I want to know what percentage of those moneys collected by the Buildings Corporation from all of the ministries in this province go to pay for simply having the bureaucracy there. I want to know if, after all the expenses are paid and all of the rents collected, there is any money left over. If so, where does that money go?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: That's what I want to know, Mr. Minister. Does that go into the general revenue coffers of the province of British Columbia?

I want to know also, Mr. Chairman, in situations such as the one that exists in Vanderhoof relating to the land office.... For the information of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), it exists in Fort St. James as well, where his ministry pays $80,000 a year to the B.C. Buildings Corporation for a facility that was purchased 40 years ago and has long since been paid for. I can get you that same space in that same community for half that price. I can do it tomorrow with one phone call. I want to know why we have to have a Crown corporation of 1,100 persons just to charge our ministries three times the rate being charged in the private sector. If ever there was an argument for privatization, this is it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member wanted to know the figures on the lottery accounts. I think if he'll look at the estimate book for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, page 331, he'll find the answer there. I gave it to him before.

The guidelines at the moment on the allocation of the various categories of lottery grants are what I consider to be reasonable. If the member has any objection to the guidelines, he might want to give some information as to how those guidelines could be changed, provided that the changed guidelines are applicable provincewide rather than in Omineca only.

B.C. Buildings Corporation is, I think, a very efficient operation. The staffing components change. It has gradually decreased since 1980 from 1,233 to 994. They have a policy of market rent, and if market rent is inaccurate in that particular community of Vanderhoof, and if the member will give me the details — billings and so forth — I'll be glad to take it up with BCBC. I'm sure that if it is in excess of market rent there will be an adjustment. But I am rather surprised that a ministry of government is paying what is deemed to be a non-market rent. If it has complained to BCBC.... Because BCBC has addressed a variety of those issues that have been brought to its attention by ministries. But if you want to bring this one to my attention, I'll be glad to take it up with the president and see if we can't change it.

MR. KEMPF: One of my questions wasn't answered. Do the ministries have the right to opt out of renting from the British Columbian Buildings Corporation? I do have facts that prove quite conclusively to me that the Buildings Corporation is charging three times the rent that the private sector is.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They charge market rent. If it's three times that, I'm rather surprised that some ministry hasn't complained. If they haven't, they're not doing their job.

MR. KEMPF: There seems to be a difference between the number of employees that the minister says the Buildings Corporation has and the number that I got from the Buildings Corporation just this afternoon. The figure I was given by the Buildings Corporation was 1,083 employees. That doesn't seem to jibe with the figures that were given on the floor of this House by the minister.

The other question also that wasn't answered was: how much of the revenue that comes from the B.C. Buildings Corporation actually goes to running the bureaucracy? How much does it cost merely to have the Buildings Corporation in place? What difference would it make to all those ministries were it not there or were it privatized, in effect, and each ministry allowed to purchase the space they need in the private sector in their own particular area? I maintain it would save millions of dollars. I want to know how much of the revenue that is paid in by the ministries and received by the B.C. Buildings Corporation is actually used to feed the bureaucracy.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there's so much gobbledegook coming from that member on the question of BCBC that I have some difficulty in responding. I just told him that the....

MR. HOWARD: What member? Clear the record.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Omineca, in case there's any doubt. On the question of BCBC, I think it's a very efficient operation, I don't think the ministries could conceivably find the space at the same type of rates that they're able to get from BCBC. Certainly in a down market like we have today, they may have a short-term beneficial period on rents, but over the long haul I think BCBC is doing a good job and providing a very efficient service to the various ministries of government.

You have to recognize, first of all, that BCBC is a large landlord. BCBC administers 1,970,800 square metres of space in the province, which is a substantial amount of space. I think they do it in a very efficient way. I gave you the figures before on a projected staff of 994 for 1985. There will be some changes there, because they did absorb the 36 workers who came from the maintenance crew here in the parliament buildings. Their projection is to eventually end up in 1985 with a staffing component of 994 scattered throughout British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: I'd like to admonish the minister not to turn BCBC over to the private sector. I'd hate like blazes coming to the parliament buildings run by the private sector and operated by the private sector. It doesn't make very much sense. However, I brought this matter to the attention of.... I'm certainly going to subscribe to what the member for Omineca said. The last time this minister's estimates were up, I brought this question of.... It was brought to my attention that the cost of ambulance headquarters tripled when BCBC took over. That's consistent with what the member for Omineca was saying. I think there's a slush bucket along the way. I'm not sure where the money's going. I don't think it's probably going for....

[ Page 4023 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: They issue an annual report. Read it.

MR. COCKE: I read it, but it doesn't tell you what the rents are. It was set up so that the government could go into debt without showing it on the books. That's clear and simple. That's the problem, Mr. Member for Omineca. They're paying an awful lot of debts out of there that otherwise we would be paying from this Legislature. In the old days, when Public Works used to do that work, it was a pay-as-you-go proposition. It was there right in front of us in the estimates. Now it's gone forever The Socred government has a tendency to hide everything they can under a bushel. This time they hid it under a peck.

MR. KEMPF: In relation to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, I guess you can say it's taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. I guess I don't disagree with that intragovernmental flow of money. But when that flow means the discontinuance of a service to one of my small communities, then I have to take exception to what is happening. I would suggest that that is the case with the land office in Vanderhoof. We're losing that land office in the name of restraint. Again I say — and I can't emphasize it too much — that I philosophically agree with restraint, and so do my constituents. But when it means that because we're paying too much rent to a Crown corporation simply to keep that Crown corporation alive, and because of that high rent — three times what it is in the private sector in that community — we're losing that service to my constituents, I have to say that it's time to really take a look at what it is we're doing.

[5:45]

I've got an awful lot more to say about lottery funds, and I still haven't gotten any answers.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Certainly I'll do it tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will be with us shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE:

University of Victoria Special Appropriation Act, 1984

British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1984

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.