[ Page 6561 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 60: minister's office –– 6561

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Cocke

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 60: minister's office, $190,520.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really didn't want to delay the progress of the House; nevertheless, it's always a pleasure for me to have the opportunity of speaking on the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

My ministry offers a broad and diverse range of programs to the general public and to the government itself. In administering the programs and services in both these areas, we have striven for greater degrees of administrative efficiency in order to free up funds that can be redirected to public programs. The amalgamation of the staff headquarters, for instance, has resulted in savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to be spent on public programs such as Provincial Museum exhibits. The worldwide recession, from which we are only now beginning to emerge, has put enormous pressure on our recreational, sport, cultural and historic resources programs. That has put the onus on us all to get greater productivity at less cost to the taxpayers.

It is a matter of considerable satisfaction to me that we have been able to do just that in this ministry. At a time when cultural organizations throughout the western world have suffered setbacks due to sagging economies, we in British Columbia have been able to provide a consistent level of funding to the arts. Although we have not been able to increase grants over the last couple of years, we have not had to cut them back.

I am pleased to announce that this year we are in a position to provide, through lottery funds, a modest increase in core funding for cultural and sport-related activities. While the overall administrative costs of the cultural services branch will drop again this year by 3 percent, the amount of money flowing to the arts community by way of grants administered by that branch this year will stand at approximately $6.7 million, an increase of $300,000 over last year.

For the arts to thrive, they must receive adequate support from all sectors of society — general public, business and all levels of government. If any one source fails to contribute its fair share, the burden on other sectors is increased and the arts invariably suffer. Unfortunately, this is happening in some parts of British Columbia, and most noticeably in our capital city of Victoria, where the municipal government is consistently underfunding the city's cultural attractions.

The Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, for instance, receives from the city the lowest per capita grant in Canada, and the lowest on a percentage basis of any gallery in British Columbia. The Pacific Opera Association, a remarkable opera company for a city of this size, paid $23,000 for the use of the civic-owned McPherson Playhouse last year, but received only $12,000 in funding from the city.

The annual deficit of the Bastion Theatre equals the difference between its annual grant from the city and the amount it has to pay the city in rent. The list goes on. But the point that needs to be made is that cultural attractions are a major contributor to the quality of life in British Columbia and a proven draw for tourists, which makes them doubly important for a city like Victoria. I think it is clearly time that the city of Victoria got its act together and increased its funding levels to reflect the importance of the arts in British Columbia's capital city. In this fiscal year we're developing a program to assist cultural and sports organizations in attracting to our province events which yield economic benefits to the community that hosts them.

Recently the Premier announced that the 1986 B.C. Festival of the Arts will be held in Prince George. The Festival of the Arts is a unique opportunity for artists to learn together through competitions, instruction and exposure to audiences. The festival also serves to increase public awareness of the role and the value of art in our society. The first B.C. Festival of the Arts was held in Kamloops in 1982. Penticton hosted the event in 1984. In addition to the cultural benefits of the festival, the businesses in Prince George will feel the positive impact of having between 1,500 to 2,000 visitors early in their tourist season.

A few hundred feet away from this chamber is one of the finest museums in the world. The B.C. Provincial Museum is a major tourist attraction and a source of great pride for all British Columbians, not only those who live in Victoria. This year we'll be adding a new exhibit, to be opened to the public in 1986, which incidentally is the 100th anniversary of the museum. The exhibit, "Open Oceans," will be a spectacular addition to the museum, which, like all the museum's exhibits, will educate while it entertains millions of visitors.

British Columbia has an excellent public library system and British Columbians are among the most active library users in Canada. I'm pleased that despite the difficult times we as a province have been through, we have managed to hold the line on library grants, and in some instances to increase them for the 1985-86 fiscal year. This is a clear reflection of the fact that the government is committed to maintaining the high quality of library services that British Columbians expect and deserve.

In amateur sport, the ministry continues to build on the successes of its development program. This House and the news media should be aware by now that last year was our best ever in Olympic competition, with 112 B.C. athletes competing in the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles; in fact, we made up 25 percent of the Canadian team. In addition, our Winter Olympics athletes and our disabled athletes distinguished themselves in international competition. This accomplishment is the result of a coordinated sport development program, which involves sports organizations, local volunteers, corporate sponsors and government. It involves a systematic identification of talent, the training of coaches as well as athletes, and exposure to first-class competition.

[10:15]

This year my ministry will make $1.6 million available in strategic ways to double the number of B.C. athletes on the winter Olympics team for the 1988 Olympics in Calgary. Called the B.C. Best Ever '88 Olympics program, this initiative will help athletes and sports organizations plan and train over the next three years, with the objective of making the Canadian Olympic team. For the summer games in Seoul,

[ Page 6562 ]

Korea, we'll be putting together a funding program that will build on the outstanding performance in Los Angeles.

An important part of the mandate of the ministry is the provision of support services to government. Our postal, personnel, printing and information services continue to go through a process of streamlining. The development of government personnel services has made it possible for us to separate the hiring and appeal functions, and it will allow us to delegate more responsibility for hiring to line ministries. At a saving this year of more than $3.4 million, this new division, headed by an assistant deputy minister, has made government personnel services leaner, more productive and, at the same time, more responsive to the needs of government ministries.

In summary, I'm proud that the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services has streamlined its operations and improved productivity through the last few difficult years. Through the streamlining mechanism and by making the thing leaner and more economic, it has really been possible for us to increase funding to the various organizations in British Columbia. I'm very pleased that we've been able to do that, because the benefit flows to the community rather than to the bureaucracy. With these few words I look forward to a few questions, I'm sure, on the activities of my ministry in the past and on its policies for the future.

MR. HANSON: Listening to the hon. Provincial Secretary in his opening remarks, one has the sense that he's reading us a bedtime story. It's just a lot of frippery,

Mr. Chairman, in this minister's vote we have very ominous trends. In fact, I'd like to begin my remarks by giving that minister credit for a great deal of the anguish that British Columbians have experienced over the last year, because he has been one of the central ministers responsible for the so-called restraint program.

As you can recall, Mr. Chairman, Bill 3, one of the pillars of the restraint program, a direct attack on the public sector in this province, has resulted in.... As the Royal Bank, the Conference Board of Canada and many other independent assessment agencies have indicated, it is these kinds of programs that have resulted in the lack of economic recovery in British Columbia. So you certainly deserve credit for being instrumental in bringing those programs in. But you didn't do it yourself; you were just doing what you were told to do by the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order, and also the member will relate his remarks to the minister's administrative activities.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying is that with the advantage of time we've been able to see that that minister wasn't really acting on his own; he was acting under instructions from the Premier, and particularly the Premier's chief adviser, Mr. Patrick Kinsella. Mr. Patrick Kinsella gave the public of British Columbia a good look at the way this government operates when he was invited to speak at Simon Fraser University. He indicated that the way the Social Credit government operates is through manipulation of the public through public-opinion polling, paid for by the taxpayers themselves, with the addition of excessive advertising, also paid for by the taxpayers. Mr. Kinsella, in his transcript from the Simon Fraser speech, gave us a really good look at the Social Credit mentality: the way they view the public, the way they view their right to spend tax dollars on their political agenda and political campaign. He indicated in the transcript that unlike other pollsters who take a snapshot of the public in time and assess the public's views, the approach and philosophy of Allan Gregg, one of the principal owners of Decima Research — of course, this is the polling firm for the Social Credit Party, as well as working for the government — is that they manipulate. The idea is to move the public and shape the public's view by manipulation. By understanding and having some sense of public attitudes they then, through advertising and manipulation, shift and move, in a very cynical way, the people of the province into trying to follow that.

He indicated that the whole restraint program and the imaging around that restraint program for the 1983 election was to create a tough guy image for the Premier of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, this relates directly to the mandate and responsibilities of this minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for explaining that. If the member could further advise the committee how this does relate to the vote that's before us now, I'm sure the committee would be well served. I seem to be hearing discussion of another minister's administrative responsibility and another minister's staff. We are on vote 60 of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. To the vote, please.

MR. HANSON: What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that this minister, being responsible for the polling within the government.... For much of the polling; I know polling is done by ministries, and that is of concern as well. But primarily, the advertising and polling budget that falls within the mandate of this minister was being used to shape and manipulate the views of the people of British Columbia in a very, very cynical way.

This provincial government is the largest advertiser in this province. They are the third-largest advertiser, when you add Expo, in all of Canada. Only the national government and Procter and Gamble are larger advertisers than this minister here — this Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kinsella indicated to us that prior to his arrival the British Columbia government did very little polling at all. It was a tradition in this province that people legislated — that governments governed — on the basis of their own views, and that their policies and platforms were not primarily intended to manipulate the people of the province. But we were treated to a massive departure when Mr. Kinsella arrived from Ontario, after his experience with the Davis government and his experience in the United States, and to a new approach to politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. member, I would advise the member we are dealing with administrative actions that do not appear to be within the scope of the Provincial Secretary. Can the member return to the vote before us, please?

MR. HANSON: Polling, Mr. Chairman, is under this minister. Advertising is under this minister. The restraint

[ Page 6563 ]

program is under this minister, largely. So I'm really not sure what your interventions are all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you're referring to a former public servant who was not employed by the Provincial Secretary; it was another minister's office. To the vote before us, please.

MR. HANSON: Fine. Just to outline the structure of this ministry that is of particular concern to us, there is a government information service which has a budget of $20 million. That government information service is playing a very interesting role with this government. They are contracting out advertising and polling. My understanding is that they are involved even with the administration of cabinet ministers' travel — that they play a role in advising the government where they should travel and what they should say. They are more of a propaganda arm of Social Credit than a true public information service, That, Mr. Chairman, is a very disturbing trend. I want to ask the minister some questions in a moment. You know, when you look at other aspects of this minister's jurisdiction that he has totally altered and politicized over the last few years, there's the role of the government agents. Government agents were at one time longtime career public employees who, because of merit, were occupying positions in the various regions of the province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, government agents are with the Ministry of Finance. We're discussing the Provincial Secretary's estimates at this point.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, it does relate because the government agents now are being asked to feed back media information to the government about how cabinet ministers look on television and whether the particular news clips are carried and how they look, and so on. That is a totally different way that government agents function now than that they functioned in the past. For example, here we have a memo from government information services — which is under this minister — which is a message to all government agents. This is just a little aside to give you a flavour of how government agents work these days, and what they're expected to do:

"Message to all government agents. Government information services today sent to BCTV a three minute video clip of Energy Minister Stephen Rogers visiting the Gulf Canada anthracite coal-mine at Mt. Klappan. The minister is in the company of Gulf Canada executive Al Johnson. We would appreciate your watching local TV news and letting us know by FAX" — whatever FAX is; what is that, some kind of...? — "if the item is used and how it looks. Thank you. Government information services.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: The point, Mr. Chairman, is that this government is using government agents as media monitors for the Social Credit government.

AN HON. MEMBER: And government equipment.

MR. HANSON: And government equipment. How about those apples!

The government agents were never asked to do that kind of thing before. They were never a part of the government information service network. So here we have a very disturbing trend. The government has increased its information budget — its advertising budget — to the point that it's the third-largest advertiser in all of Canada. Meanwhile the food lines get longer and the programs get cut and the attack goes on, based on polling.

[10:30]

Just on the weekend Martin Goldfarb said: "Oh, well, recently strategic polling has been going on around the education issue." They're polling and manipulating around education. Strategic polling is going on around tourism. Here we have a government that has completely lost the boundary where Social Credit ends and where the public service begins, We've talked about that many, many times in this House.

What are the numbers on polling that the public should be aware of? They're very difficult to know, because there are small polls mentioned in news articles by various cabinet ministers: such-and-such a company did a poll for us for $30,000, some other one did a poll for so many thousand. Those aren't the firms that we are even aware of.

Let's just look at Goldfarb, Canadian Facts, Canadian Gallup: in 1978-79, $300,000 in polling was paid for by the taxpayer. I'm sure there were others, smaller or buried somewhere in other vouchers — McKim vouchers or some other vouchers; it's very difficult to tell — some supplier, but I'm sure paid for by the taxpayers. In 1979-80 Goldfarb Consultants, Canadian Facts, Canadian Gallup Poll, Public Affairs International — taxpayers paid, just with those four firms, $182, 219. It picked up more. In 1980-81 Goldfarb Consultants, Canadian Facts, Canadian Gallup, Public Affairs International.... Public Affairs International, Mr. Chairman, is a very interesting one because it's an allied firm of Decima, Allan Gregg's firm, the Social Credit Party's firm. In 1981-82, as I've just stated, they were paid a quarter of a million dollars in taxpayers' money. Those are what we know. There were others, hard to find though. In 1982-83 just Canadian Gallup, Goldfarb, Public Affairs International, the arm of Decima, were paid $155,000 of taxpayers' money. Think of all the cuts, all the austerity, all the restraint, all the layoffs, all the firings, all the anguish that that minister created under Bill 3 and other bills; yet what has he been doing? In 1982-83, $155,797.

Mr. Speaker, in '83-84 just with Goldfarb and Public Affairs International and not counting other smaller firms like Hayhurst and others, it was $86,459. In those six years alone the ones we've been able to find — just ones we've been able to readily put our hands on because they're in Public Accounts or there's a notation that they're in schedule 2, indicating they're a supplier of a service and stated there — received $1.234 million of public money. Goldfarb, Public Affairs International, Canadian Gallup — $1.2 million in polling, of what we can find. There are many, many more polls — many more smaller operations that are buried somewhere, attached to great lengthy voucher statements somewhere.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, here we have a province that doesn't disclose, as they do in Ontario. A poll paid for by the taxpayer is disclosed and tabled in the Legislature in the province of Ontario, yet this minister lives where the sun never shines and the polling dollars flow out of the back of the truck. A total of $1.2 million in the last six years to the very

[ Page 6564 ]

obvious polling firms that we can find, and yet there is no public disclosure, no guidelines at all. It's a travesty, Mr. Chairman. And advertising is incredible.

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for a member of this Legislature, even those on the Public Accounts Committee, to examine the vouchers of this province. At one time not so long ago, members of this House were allowed to review vouchers, and their staff were allowed to review vouchers. They were allowed to make copies of vouchers for examination. That was the right of the members of the Public Accounts Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One more time to the member. We are dealing with the vote of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. If the member wishes to bring in debate on what has happened in another committee of this Legislative Assembly, it is out of order. To the vote before us, please.

MR. HANSON: What I am leading up to, Mr. Chairman, is one of my first questions to the minister. I'd like him to make note, if he would.

Upon reviewing a Goldfarb voucher, audit account no. 64-1489 in the amount of $55,000 to Goldfarb Consultants. Attached to that letter was a letter to the Provincial Secretary from the Minister of Finance as chairman of Treasury Board. It was regarding the government communication plan. Apparently the government communication plan must be some kind of a comprehensive document that was scrutinized by Treasury Board, and Treasury Board wrote a letter on April 6, 1984, marked "personal and confidential" from the Minister of Finance to the Provincial Secretary:

"My dear colleague:

"I am writing in response to a memorandum I received from Mr. Chazottes of government information services dated March 26, 1984 (copy attached) " — and there was no copy attached to the voucher — "concerning delegated authority for fee-for-service contracts relating to government's communication plan.

"On July 13, 1983, I wrote to Mr. Heal" — we are all familiar with Mr. Doug Heal in this House — "the communications counsel, informing him of the amount of information and advertising funds transferred from ministries to government information services to be centrally administered for the 1983-84 fiscal year. In that letter I informed him that no further approval from Treasury Board was required for the expenditure of the funds, since the communications plan of the government had been reviewed and approved by Treasury Board in approving the government information services 1983-84 budget."

If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Chairman, that would be about $18 million. So the Minister of Finance was saying: "The $18 million has been approved. We no longer need to know what you want to spend it on."

I'll go on with the letter:

"While I specifically stated that the exemption applied to STOB" — standard object of expenditure — "40 (information and advertising) funds, I now understand that funds for similar purposes were also budgeted under STOB 20 (fee-for-service contracts). I wish to confirm that this exemption from Treasury Board approval applies to all expenditures, regardless of coding" — so anything to do with advertising, anything to do with polling, anything to do with fee-for-service contracts, anything to do with vehicle rental, anything to do with helicopters, anything to do with anything, any coding — "that form part of the government's communications plan approved by Treasury Board.

"I also wish to confirm that this exemption will continue to be in effect for the 1984-85 fiscal year, as Treasury Board has already reviewed and approved the government's communications plan when it approved the government information services budget for 1984-85."

So what is the government information budget for 1984-85 — just the GIS budget in the book? Twenty million dollars. They don't have to go back to Treasury Board. How many other ministries have that? I thought there were various kinds of directives from Treasury Board that said if the expenditure is over so much money — over $5,000 or over some other figure — they'd come back to be vetted by Treasury Board or something of that nature.

My first question to the minister is: will he please outline the government information plan, and will he provide this House with a copy of that plan?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there were a lot of words but not too many questions. First, the member for Vancouver or Victoria — wherever he's from.... Are you the first or the second member? I have some difficulty remembering that.

MR. HANSON: Answer the question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First, the member said that.... I'm going to respond to some of the false statements that he made, first of all. He said that Decima is working for the government of British Columbia. I want to say that Decima does not have a contract or a subcontract with the provincial government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. The minister may be of the opinion that another member is incorrect, but "false statements" is treading very closely to an imputation that would not be accepted. Anyway, please continue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I withdraw without reservation, Mr. Chairman. Without reservation, I withdraw the statement but he makes an inaccurate statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Victoria on a point of order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier of the province, in responding to a question taken as notice with respect to polls paid for by the taxpayer, indicated in this House that Decima Research has had polls paid for by the taxpayer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. The minister continues. The member can bring that debate into committee any time he is recognized.

HON. MR. CHABOT: As previously stated, Mr. Chairman, the member is in error when he says that Decima is

[ Page 6565 ]

working for the government, because Decima does not have a contract or a subcontract with the government.

The member talks about GIS — not the guaranteed income supplement, but government information services. He fails to realize that we have centralized the various expenditures for advertising of every ministry of government under the auspices of GIS. The member, I think, tends to lose his credibility when he reads a directive that has been issued by GIS to government agents and he adds words to that particular letter, words that were not contained within that letter. Then, when I asked him to repeat the contents of that letter, he quickly retracted those words, in which he said "how it looks."

The GIS are attempting to monitor information services. They've clearly asked the government agents of British Columbia to determine whether a particular clip had been used; I don't think there's anything wrong with asking that. But he added the words "and how it looks." I want to say that there were no such words in that letter going from government information services to the government agents of British Columbia. The member tends to do these kinds of things. He has a great tendency to add things, such as when he looked at the voucher for payment to PSI, which he....

[10:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: PAI.

MR. HANSON: That's an arm of Decima.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He went on to say that the paper and the voucher had to do with political parties in British Columbia. That's taking political licence, as far as I'm concerned, by suggesting that the paper had anything to do with political parties in British Columbia. The research document had to do with parties and policies. But no, the member wants to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member rises on a point of order.

MR. HANSON: It's not parties and policies; the minister is incorrect. It's parties and politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. We are in committee. You will have every opportunity to debate when you are recognized. Please confine points of order to legitimate points of order. The minister continues.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the voucher did say "parties and politics."

AN HON. MEMBER: You were wrong.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right; I've just checked it. But the member was wrong, and his credibility is being challenged when he suggests that the paper really deals with political parties in British Columbia. So I wonder how much credibility we can attach to many of the statements he's making.

Also, he attempts to leave the impression that government information services is used as a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister has referred to a document — public, I suppose....

HON. MR. CHABOT: A little piece of paper here.

MR. MACDONALD: A little piece of paper. But you've quoted from the document, if only its title, and it should be tabled in the House. It belongs to the people of the province. Otherwise, we simply don't take your word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: No, we're not taking your word for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver East will come to order. The tabling of documents is a matter for the House and not for a committee. I'm sure all members are aware of that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I did not quote from any documents here. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the member for Vancouver East, he attempts to leave the impression that the $20 million allocated to government information services for propaganda purposes on the part of government.... I just want to put on the record what these expenditures really cover. As I said a little earlier, it's an amalgamation of the expenditures of various ministries of government under government information services. Just to give you some idea as to what the funds are used for.... I'll give you the proposed expenditures, but first I'll tell you what the funds are used for in various ministries of government. I think it's important that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) listen.

The Attorney-General's ministry, for instance, has Law Reform Commission publication of reports and working papers, advertising for Counterattack and traffic safety, reports of boards and commissions.

MR. HANSON: It's $1.8 million for the whole works.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a moment. I'll give you the dollar figures. There is the member chirping up. He doesn't want to hear the truth.

Agriculture and Food: for the promotion of B.C. agriculture industry technical publications; pest control — are you against that?; livestock production manuals; five-year agricultural strategy; crop technology — 45 to 50 publications; public awareness; mark-of-excellence in-store promotions; food: hospitality trade shows.

Consumer and Corporate Affairs; consumer education course — which is a compulsory course in secondary schools: reprints of existing materials on statutes and regulations; renting and investing.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Ministry of Forests: fire prevention advertising; burning permit publications; pest management reports; publications and films; brochure maps; forest recreation sites and trails; litter bags; land management reports and handbooks; forest reports; research review resource planning manual published each March.

[ Page 6566 ]

Ministry of Health: reports of boards and commissions; public notices; vital statistics publications; health promotion campaign to reduce utilization of treatment services; education materials for mental health; self-help; new organ donor registry; external publications as required by health services' routine public notices.

Ministry of Human Resources: information advertising on child abuse; enforcement of maintenance; foster recruitment packages; child abuse manual.

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development: reprinting and upgrading of existing publications; promotion; trade export activities; business and industrial expansion; publications in support of trade export activities; international trade and investment; Expo 86 business visitors' campaign; the publications "B.C., Canada, Land of Opportunity," "Export-Import Opportunities," "B.C. Facts," "China Economic Review" and "Doing Business in B.C." — in English, German, Chinese, French and Japanese; advertising the ministry awareness of entrepreneurial immigration; international marketing.

Ministry of Labour: apprenticeship and employment training programs; safety engineering literature — gas, electrical and elevating devices; women's programs; employment standards; job creation; human rights; Labour Code; mediation.

Ministry of Education: schools list; post-secondary booklets; circulars; field services; bulletins; curriculum development; learning assessment; examinations; correspondence publications; school operations; visually impaired and handicapped special education; Indian education; institutional support services; continuing education; post-secondary curriculum development; Provincial Educational Media Centre; academic technical programs.

Ministry of Environment: snow accumulation statistics; forecast trends in water runoff; new waste management program; beverage container refund regulations; environmental protection plans; privatization of map distribution system; tourist opportunities in sports fishery; hunting regulations synopsis; wildlife management; hunter training; waste management; surveys and resource mapping; fishing regulations synopsis; fish distribution reports.

Finance: public procurement strategy; B.C. vendor participation; consumer taxation; property taxation; government agencies' brochures; Financial and Economic Review; background papers to budget; discussion papers; quarterly reports.

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing: park and safety brochures; park multimedia promotion; housing brochures; trade and home show displays; outdoor recreation brochures; technical publications; lands legal advertising.

Municipal Affairs: municipal statistics; circulars and notices; building standards publications.

Provincial Secretary and Government Services: awareness campaign; Victoria attractions brochures; pension information; records management manuals.

Ministry of Tourism: trade publications; film promotion office; familiarization tours; travel writers; travel planners; domestic, international and offshore distribution; Superhost program — that is, hospitality training; Partners in Tourism; regional, national and international advertising to promote Tourism B.C.

Ministry of Transportation and Highways: road-user safety; child restraint; bicycle safe-driving habits; driver licensing manuals; safe-driving and safe-riding guides; air brakes; commercial truckers' handbook; engineering safety brochures.

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications: certificate and grant applications promoting compressed natural gas as alternative fuel; open university consortium; government science and technology initiatives; scientific research development in B.C.; seminars and workshops in high-technology areas.

The member for Victoria suggests that there are no statutory requirements and there is no advertising on the part of various government agencies, and I'm just saying some of the advertising that does take place — some statutory and some non-statutory — from government agencies that I have listed.... I wonder whether the members of the opposition are opposed to these various programs that I have enumerated which cost millions and millions of dollars. They attempt to leave the impression that the advertising budget is for the embellishment of the Social Credit Party. These expenditures are requirements of each ministry of government.

I'm just going to give you some figures as to the dollars that are allocated to different ministries of government. First of all, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has $487,000 allocated for their advertising requirements, as I outlined a little earlier. The Attorney-General, $540,000; Consumer and Corporate Affairs, $63,000; Education, $819,000; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, $367,000; Ministry of Environment, $382,000; Ministry of Finance, $192,000; Ministry of Forests, $393,000; Ministry of Health, $827,000; Human Resources, $130,000; Industry and Small Business Development, $500,000; IGR, $14,000; International Trade and Investment, $500,000; Labour, $568,000; Lands, Parks and Housing, $979,000; Municipal Affairs, $26,000; Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government Services, $248,000; Transportation and Highways, $287,000; Universities, Science and Communications, $155,000; GIS, $529,000; Tourism, $9,100,000; for a total of $17,106,000 of necessary advertising on the part of various ministries of government, some of it statutory and some of it not.

[11:00]

So I put to rest the false impression which has been consistently conveyed by the member for Victoria and that party across the way as to how advertising dollars are expended and which ministries of government expend advertising dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, Mr. Minister.

MR. HANSON: Tell us about the communications plans that you forgot to tell us about.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I want to thank the member for Victoria for reminding me of that. Of course, you have to realize that my time is very limited here, because the lights go on, and once the lights....

MR. MACDONALD: You're all right until the next election.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've been hearing that from you and some of your friends over there for 22 years — for the last seven elections, my friend.

On the government communications plans, he talked about preapprovals and this sinister personal and confidential

[ Page 6567 ]

letter which I received from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) about preapprovals. He's attempting to leave the impression that there is special recognition for government information services. Preapprovals are nothing new in government. Preapprovals from Treasury Board are nothing new. Preapprovals are available to every ministry of government and used by every ministry of government. Just for the member's education, I think I will quote from the directive issued by Treasury Board, which has been in place.... He attempts to leave the impression that there's something sinister going on here with preapprovals on the budget of government information services, that they are unique, that no other ministry of government has this kind of blank cheque. That's straight rubbish, straight nonsense, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I will quote from the budget on administrative policy. This was issued on December 1, 1981 — four and a half years ago; four years and seven months, to be exact. It had this to say about procedures on the part of different ministries of government. It's not selective. There's no favourable consideration for any branch of my ministry; it's for all ministries of government. It says this about Treasury Board approvals, dealing with preapprovals. And this is not a bulletin issued strictly to accommodate government information services. It has been in place since 1981. I know that you've attempted, through Public Accounts, to question the auditor-general, and to suggest that there is something sinister going on here, that there is special consideration for certain agencies of government which is not available to other agencies of government. But this is a directive, issued to all ministries of government, which addresses preapprovals, and it is dated December 1, 1981.

"Preapprovals. A preapproval for any expenditure item covered by an existing directive may be obtained by including the item in a ministry's annual budget submission. A description of the nature of the request, the justification and the financial information necessary for proper evaluation should be attached. Where Treasury Board approval is requested for a number of similar expenditures, and the same program specification or criterion applies to each expenditure, approval may be requested for the total dollar amount."

I wish the member would listen and stop chit-chatting over there, because he'll come back and make the accusation that the dollar values are substantially greater in government information services than they are in other ministries. I just want you to pick up those very select and important words. So I'm going to repeat them so you won't forget them: "Where Treasury Board approval is requested for a number of similar expenditures, and the same program specification or criterion applies to each expenditure, approval may be requested for the total dollar amount." These are not guidelines drawn up specifically for government information services; they are guidelines that pertain to all ministries of government.

"The use of this procedure is arranged by Treasury Board analysts and ministry officials. In normal circumstances a preapproval is final. In unusual circumstances, such as periods of remedial fiscal restraint, preapproval items may be affected by Treasury Board controls or limitations of expenditure. At such times ministries will have cause to review their expenditure plans, including preapproval items."

It also outlines the methods of communication of these approvals. "Once Treasury Board has adjudicated a Treasury Board submission or a request for preapproval of an expenditure, the decision of the board will be conveyed to the appropriate minister in a letter which indicates...." Yes, this is the very sinister letter that you've uncovered in public accounts. But I'll repeat that again because you were talking again.

" Once Treasury Board has adjudicated a Treasury Board submission or a request for preapproval of an expenditure, the decision of the board will be conveyed to the appropriate minister in a letter which indicates approval or approval with conditions or non-approval. This information will also be conveyed to the office of the comptroller-general for the determination of expenditure control procedures."

So the letter that you have that was sent by the Minister of Finance to myself really follows very closely — follows, in fact, without any deviation whatsoever — the directives that are issued under Treasury Board, which he is obligated to do and under which he is obligated to notify the comptroller-general as well, so that the comptroller-general can then put in place the kind of controls that are necessary on government expenditures.

I think there's another point that I should make, for the information of the member on these preapprovals. He's been attempting for several weeks now to make political mileage on the issue of preapprovals.

MR. WILLIAMS: He's done very well.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, he hasn't done very well at all. Yes, he's done very well in misinforming the people of British Columbia as to what takes place in government. If you think that's doing fairly well, fine, you might have a perverted mind when it comes to those kinds of points of view.

But I want to tell the member.... You might have a perverted mind, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, but I just want to tell the member for Victoria that these directives of Treasury Board were put in place — I'm going to repeat it again — in December 1981, before government information services was established. So don't attempt to leave the impression that this directive was put there or that there is special treatment for the government information services, because there isn't. The government information services have to go through the same preapproval process as all ministries of government, and the directive was put in place long before GIS was put in place. So there is nothing sinister about GIS.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just like increasing McKim $2 million just before the election.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't suggest for one second that this minister would be misleading the House or giving us any kind of a snow job, as I've heard some of my colleagues indicate. But I sometimes get a little cynical when I read vouchers, and I got particularly cynical the other day when I read a voucher.

Let me tell you what it was all about. It was audit control number 036775, the department control number was 487403, and it was a voucher for $87,271.50. So far, so good, right? Everything okay?

[ Page 6568 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's the date?

MR. COCKE: The date of the voucher — well, I'm not going to give you the date yet. I'm going to give you the dates of.... This was a voucher that was to prepay expenses for June 1983 ads in Time and Maclean's. Okay? So far, so good, right? June 1983, a month after the election. But that money was sent somewhat before the election, and, lo and behold, we found that it was to pay.... Don't forget this was prepaid to pay those June Time and Maclean's ads, but it actually paid, through McKim, $87,271.50 for April 1983 TV spots during the election campaign.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. COCKE: Yes. It was authorized to pay Time and Maclean's ads after the election, but actually used to pay for TV spots during the election. I don't know whether any of my colleagues remember TV ads during the election campaign. It's all in the voucher, gang. It's all there. So look up audit control 036775 and you will find it all there — April TV spots. That minister is standing up and giving us....

MR. HANSON: That's before the election.

MR. COCKE: Just during the election campaign. The election was May 5.

MR. ROSE: They're not party politics though.

MR. COCKE: Oh no, never, never, never. Never make accusations against that nice little minister — unless you can prove them. And this one is proved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Progress, not politics.

MR. COCKE: Check on your vouchers, my friend.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Progress, not politics.

MR. COCKE: Progress is right. TV ads during the election campaign where money actually was set aside to put ads in Time and Maclean's after the campaign. All of a sudden there was a big change of heart, and McKim did the job for the government during that campaign.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we still don't have the outline of the communications plan outlined for this blanket preapproval on $18 million of expenditure for government information — for advertising.

Let me just tell the House a few facts regarding advertising under this government.

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You'll have your chance. You weren't clear on the plan at all.

First of all, $1.7 million is statutory and the rest is what they call informational advertising. Sorry, $1.9 million is statutory; $17.8 million is information advertising. In other words, less than 10 percent is statutory. The rest is the manipulation we've been talking about. In 1974-75, the last year of the NDP government, the advertising and publications expenditure was $5.6 million. It rose in '82-83 — the year prior to the election — to even more than it is right now: $22 million. It is now $20 million. In other words, from 1978 through to 1986 in the estimates, over $167 million will be spent on advertising and publications by this government. In '74-75 it was $5.6 million; 1978-79, $13 million; 1979-80, $14 million; 1980-81, $15 million; '81-82, $20 million; '82-83, $22 million; '83-84, $18 million; '84-85, $20 million; and '85-86, $20 million, plus $25 million for Expo, taking it up to something in the order of $43 million to $45 million for government advertising.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What does that mean? In 1982-83 government advertising direct costs were $22 per household in British Columbia — $22 compared to $4.4 in 1972-73. The advertising budget is five times what it was in '72-73, the first year of the NDP government. These people have lots of money for advertising, lots of money for polling, lots of schemes for the manipulation of the public.

This minister is very, very.... His standard response.... If I criticize him in the House, he doesn't answer. If I put questions on the order paper, he doesn't answer. If I ask outside of the House, he wants me to raise it in the House. If I raise it in the House, he wants me to raise it out of the House. He's the only minister who can get into an elevator without the door opening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that nonsense?

MR. HANSON: That's mine.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: I'm even getting applause from your side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we return to the administrative responsibilities of the minister, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, all last session I had questions on the order paper with respect to all of the sensitive political advertising that was carried out on television — the Latremouille ads and all that sort of thing — and he never answers.

"11: (1) What was the cost of production of the 'Province Reports' series of television ads aired during 1982 and 1983?" That was prior to the provincial election. "(2) For the amounts listed in reply to No. 1, to whom were these funds paid, for what goods and services were the payments made, and on what dates were the payments made? (3) What was the cost of purchasing air time for the "Province Reports" TV ads, broken down by the television station on which the ads were aired? (4) What evaluation was done of the effect and effectiveness of this advertising series? (5) What were the contents of reports filed with the government in respect to the evaluation of "Province Reports" TV series? (6) What guidelines presently exist within government for the use of taxpayers' funds for political advertisements?" My answer is that there's none.

"12. Mr. Hanson to ask the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services minister the

[ Page 6569 ]

following questions: (1) What was the cost of production of the B.C. Lotteries, Expo 86 series of television advertisements aired during 1982 and 1983? (2) For the amounts listed in reply to No. 1, to whom were these funds paid, for what goods and services were the payments made, and on what dates were the payments made? (3) What was the cost of purchasing air time for B.C. Lotteries, Expo 86 TV ads, broken down by television station on which the ads were aired? (4) What evaluation was done of the effect and effectiveness of this advertising series? (5) What were the contents of reports filed with the government in respect to the evaluation of B.C. Lotteries, Expo 86 TV series? (6) What guidelines presently exist within government for the use of taxpayers' funds for political ads?

"13. Mr. Hanson to ask the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following: (1) What was the cost of production of the B.C. Lotteries, health care series of TV ads aired during 1982 and 1983? (2) For the amounts listed in reply to No. 1, to who were the funds paid, for what goods and services were the payments made? (3) What was the cost of purchasing air time for the B.C. Lotteries, health care TV ads, broken down by the television station on which the ads were aired? (4) What evaluation was done of the effect and effectiveness of this advertising series? (5) What were the contents of reports filed with the government in respect to the evaluation of B.C. Lotteries, health care TV series?

"14. Mr. Hanson to ask the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions: (1) What was the cost of production of B.C. Lotteries, ALRT series of television advertisements aired during 1982 and 1983? (2) For the amounts listed in reply to No. 1, to whom were these funds paid, for what goods and services were the payments made, and on what dates were the payments made? (3) What was the cost of purchasing air time for B.C. Lotteries, ALRT TV ads, broken down by TV stations on which the ads were aired? (4) What evaluation was done of the effect and effectiveness of this advertising series? (5) What were the contents of reports filed with government with respect to the evaluation of B.C. Lotteries, ALRT series? (6) What guidelines presently exist within government for the use of taxpayers' funds for political advertisements?

"15. Mr. Hanson to ask the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions: (1) What was the cost of production of the TRAC series of television advertisements aired during 1982 and 1983? (2) For the amounts listed in reply to No. 1, to whom were these funds paid, for what goods and services were the payments made, and on what dates were the payments made? (3) What was the cost of purchasing air time for the TRAC TV ads, broken down by the television station on which the ads were aired? (4) What evaluation was done of the effect and effectiveness of this advertising series? (6) What guidelines presently exist within government for the use of taxpayers' funds for political advertising?

"16: (1) How many copies of the annual report for 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 for each of the Crown corporations and agencies were printed? (2) To whom were they distributed? (3) What was the cost for each year and for each Crown corporation or agency for the production, including staff time, printing and distribution?"

No answers. No answers for two sessions of this House.

I've had other questions of a minor nature on this order paper, and he comes back and shuffles them off to other ministers. We have a very, very serious problem.

Here we have a budget for government information services....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You take a look. We have a government information services with a budget of $20 million. Yet we have all sorts of other people monitoring the news and doing other kinds of things — doing biographical research on MLAs, for example. That's included in the voucher — assembling biographical information on MLAs. Who needs it? Why?

What's this Frank Ogden doing? You have a government information services with $20 million and a whole staff. They pay this man $5,000 a month to watch the news for them. I found this voucher very, very interesting stuff. The figure $5,000 a month appears to be the latest: January 31, 1984, and February 31, 1985 for $4,935 a month.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sixty thousand a year to watch the news?

MR. HANSON: Anyone in the House want to get $60,000? This is what they have to do. They have to have a video cassette machine. They have to watch the 6 o'clock CBC news, the BCTV news hour — those are both at 6. Then you have to watch the 10 p.m. CBC news, the 11 p.m. CBC national. With many of these video machines, all you have to do is plug in the timer and it will tape it for you. You send it off to the government and log it: CTV national, the CBC local night final, and BCTV news hour final. In other words, the 6 o'clock news, the 10 to 11, the 11 news and Jack Webster coming on at 12 p.m., and for that Mr. Ogden gets $5,000 a month. You're spending $20 million already a year on a government information services and staff. Why do you have to pay Mr. Ogden $5,000? This is attached. This is the list of what he is supposed to do to get $5,000 a month. I don't know. The funny thing is that each one of his receipts and bills has a stamp on it: "In accordance with Treasury Board directive No. 1, 1984, certified urgently and immediately required for the public good."

MR. WILLIAMS: A real sense of humour.

MR. HANSON: A real sense of humour. Maybe I should read it once more: "In accordance with Treasury Board directive No. 1, 1984, certified urgently and immediately required for the public good." I'll tell you, my friend, $5,000 a month for Mr. Ogden. You've got $20 million government information service, and you've got the news monitored on contract for $5,000 a month: the 6 o'clock news, the 10

[ Page 6570 ]

o'clock news, the Jack Webster show, the 11 o'clock news. Somebody with a video recorder in this building could save the taxpayers $60,000 a year.

There are others. It's amazing!

MR. WILLIAMS: There's a lot of bad news.

MR. HANSON: There's a lot of bad news.

What have we got over here? Craig Aspinall: what's he doing for the government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Aspinall?

MR. HANSON: You've never heard of him. Boy oh boy, you should see this stuff. What does he do? He does public relations services over in Robson Square. His fee is $65 an hour. He bills just a portion of an hour every day, just to kind of be there. He does press and public relations services, in this particular voucher, for the period March 1 to March 31. It goes on every month, by the way. It includes client meetings, media relations, Robson Square; preparation of speech material. He writes the material; he writes things for them. He arranges their photo arrangements. He does preparation of MLA biographical material. Sixty-five bucks an hour, month after month, and we've got a government information service on a $20 million budget. We've got people over there in Robson Square, and just like clockwork, every month, we send the cheque. This one is $3,000 a month.

So we've got Mr. Ogden.... I'm not singling these out as the only ones; these are just one of the multitudes. So what's he doing? How come the government information service can't look after Robson Square? Apparently he hangs around at the cabinet meetings, or I don't what he does. I don't know, but we're paying for it. The people of this province are paying for it. It's unbelievable.

Here we have a competent public service, we've got top-level, fine administrators, and yet what did we do in the government information service? They brought in consultants to analyze the information service at $150 an hour. There were two of them from Western Management Consultants, March 30, 1984. It says "adjusted" under it; I don't know what that means. I thought the date was the date, but it's March 30, 1984, adjusted — before or after or who knows.

Here's a little bill that's interesting. You mean we don't have the consulting capacity in this public service to take a look at the information delivery systems in government without paying people $150 an hour to look at it? Consulting services rendered during November and December, and January, February and March, 1984, in connection with the review of the organization of the government information service — 149 hours times $150 an hour was $22,350; and his colleague, the other person looking at this from Western Management....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Time has elapsed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A few responses. The member has raised a name that I am not familiar with — Aspinall. I have attempted to check my records here and see whether we have an Aspinall. I don't know his first name — I presume this is his last name.

MR. HANSON: Craig.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Craig. I will attempt to see whether we have a Mr. Aspinall working for us or not. But....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[11:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: You know, you can always get up if you have a question or two to ask. You always have that privilege. I don't have the opportunity to dominate the floor.

We don't have a Mr. Ogden working for us by contract or subcontract or any other way. I would have to think that your argument is irrelevant.

Now on the issue of questions on the order paper, the member said I shuffled one of his questions from my ministry to some other ministry — that I was shuffling the answer off to another minister. Mr. Chairman, the reason I had to do that was because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. First, the minister and all members will address the Chair. Secondly, other members will not interrupt while a member is taking his place in debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I was addressing the Chair, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the member has made an accusation that I shuffled one of his questions off to another minister. I was obligated to do that because I'm not charged with the administrative responsibilities of that particular question. In other words, the member for Victoria asked the question of the wrong minister, and I had no alternative but to refer it to another minister. Doesn't he want me to do that? Or should I just leave it on the order paper unanswered? He'd better make up his mind which he prefers. I just told him that he made a mistake by asking me that question, that it was under the responsibility of another minister. I told the member that he should be asking the other minister to get the answer. I can't give him the answer, because I don't have the administrative responsibility of that particular question.

We've put to bed preapprovals. I think I gave the member the government so-called communication plan. I think I outlined to him the kind of dollars there are and what is referred to as a communication plan, which is really estimates for proposed advertising expenditures that are centralized under GIS for other ministries of government. So I think I've pretty well answered the questions, Mr. Chairman.

Of course, the member attempted to leave a false impression that the government is.... You know, he adds a bunch of figures, he goes back six years and says: "That totals so much." Now he's attempting to leave the impression that the advertising budget of Expo is really a government advertising budget; that essentially it's not $20 million, it's $45 million, and it makes it so many hundreds of percentages more of advertising. I think the member is protesting and attempting to muddy the waters. I think he should really be careful the way he muddies the waters on these issues.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not today defending anyone; I'm charging the minister. I charged the minister a while ago and I'm charging him now with spending $87,271.50 that was designated for Time and Maclean's

[ Page 6571 ]

advertising in 1983....  Instead of that, it was diverted to TV spots in April, during the election campaign of that year.

Mr. Chairman, the kind of advertising that goes on is just like this illustration. In 1983 there was a series of vouchers, almost every one of which was for pre-election advertising — $603,894.11. Anybody would have had to have been blind immediately prior to and during that campaign not to notice that every magazine and every TV station — every vehicle for advertising — was just cluttered with government advertising. When the minister says that his information service is purely providing service for other ministries to get out the message of what the government's doing, there are far too many coincidences. For example, during April the Ministry of Education spent $8,188.88 for 1,400 lines in the Vancouver Sun. The reason I bring this to the attention of the House is that there was a real argument over payment. Finally Dorothy Phillips asked for a letter of explanation. Don't forget that we're talking about a period from the beginning of April to the end of April, 1983, during that campaign. They finally paid the bill in February 1984.

MR. HANSON: No!

MR. COCKE: Yes! It was authorized February 23, 1984. There was an argument going on for over a year over whether or not that bill should be paid.

The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that when one looks through public accounts during that pre-election period, it's just like looking at confetti, in terms of the number of vouchers that were put forward for advertising. And every nickel of it, that I could find, was through McKim's. It's nice to have an agency of record that one can talk to and suggest: "Well, change the advertising. We don't need that June ad in Maclean's and Time. What we'll settle for is a bunch of TV spots a month or two earlier, during an election campaign." So that's really what we wanted to find out.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) asked a whole series of questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ancient history.

MR. COCKE: Ancient history? It would be ancient history if that series of questions had been answered, but they weren't answered. The minister decided that they weren't worthy of his time. If his responsibility to the public of B.C. isn't taken more seriously than that, then I think, Mr. Chairman, we have no alternative but to say the minister should resign and go out to pasture where he belongs.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He doesn't eat grass. What do you do with it?

Anyway, we would like to have some answers. If we can't get them on the order paper, why wouldn't the minister give them in the House? I listened to him read that long list that he had a while ago. What a job that was! It didn't really attribute anything to anything; it was just a smoke job. Of course we know governments spend money. But we also indicate that governments spend a lot more money than they should in advertising during election periods, even to the extent of diverting money, during that period, from a time that would be subsequent to an election to a time during an election campaign.

So what about it? Will the minister 'fess up? Will he tell us just exactly what they're doing with taxpayers' money? That's a huge sum that this minister has at his fingertips. We can just imagine what's going to happen during the next campaign or just prior to it. One thing, we'll know when it's going to happen. I noticed during the prelude to the last campaign, there was an edition of the automotive journal — I think they call it Westworld now, do they? It's the old British Columbia Automobile Association magazine. Before the election, of the 32 pages in the magazine some 16 were B.C. government ads. The magazine immediately after the election was over had not one single, solitary government ad in it. What an amazing coincidence! It just so happened that during that previous period they had an awful lot of things to tell car drivers, but immediately after the election they had nothing to say to car drivers. That's the way it is in B.C. It's absolutely scandalous.

Mr. Chairman, there was another jurisdiction in Canada that was somewhat similar — Ontario. And Ontario, even with that, couldn't pull it off this last time. So let's hope that the minister will see the error of his ways and try to bring his government to a point of....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Jumping in bed with whom?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Liberals in Ontario.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I thought you were talking about something local. I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the vote please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, will the minister answer some of these questions? Will he give an undertaking to answer the questions on the order paper pertaining to the information that the member for Victoria sought last time?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think I'd have to take the order paper now to see if I have any outstanding questions. I'm not aware of any that are outstanding on the order paper right now. There are some questions there on the order paper.... The questions you listed, I'm sure you realize, would involve considerable time on the part of someone to do the research and get the answers. You know, it's very costly. In my opening remarks on my estimates here I've attempted to convey to you that we've become more efficient and cost-effective in the Ministry of Government Services so that we can deliver more programs to the people in the fields of culture, sports and heritage, you know. I think that's what the people of British Columbia want. They don't want people to spend all their time doing research on questions such as the member has put forward.

The member has put up four questions that will take many hours of time of public servants. You have to realize that we've cut.... Since GIS has been in place, we've cut staff very dramatically in the area of advertising and in various ministries of government. When we did the consolidation, we eliminated 85 positions, from 200 to 115 positions, and GIS itself, which started originally with 67 positions, is now down to 58 positions. We've had savings on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia of over $2 million a year by

[ Page 6572 ]

making it leaner and more cost-effective in government. I think the member should applaud that.

Then you mention the name Aspinall. I want to say that Aspinall does not have a contract or a subcontract with government, so that destroys your argument there.

MR. COCKE: What do you pay him for?

HON. MR. CHABOT: He is not working for government. I indicated a little earlier that Frank Ogden's not working for government either.

But you know, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brings up ancient history about certain advertising expenditures. My estimates really don't pertain to ancient history. My estimates are related to the projected expenditures of my ministry between April 1, 1985, and April 1, 1986. So I don't really have that information in front of me. If the member for New Westminster is really interested in getting some of those really old questions answered, I think the proper place to attempt to get that information is on the order paper.

[11:45]

You know, I could have brought in some Dunsky vouchers and so forth, and attempted to embarrass the government and so forth. You know, they talk about.... These socialists are all alike. They're all alike. They say, oh, how terrible it is, how tragic it is to have an advertising budget. But they talk out of both sides of their mouth at once, because one has only to look at socialist Manitoba — in a matter of four years from the time of the Conservatives, the advertising budget has increased by 158 percent. And they say they're against advertising.

Interjection.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh no, I'll tell you what they spent $1.1 million on in 1983-84: to advertise their job fund and to attempt to convey to the people how well things are doing in Manitoba. If you read the Globe and Mail this morning, you'll see that two major garment industries are moving out of Winnipeg to Toronto because they can't stand the repressive trade union affiliation with that government. They find there's too close a link between the government of Manitoba and the trade union movement, and the change in laws in the province has virtually killed the garment industry in Manitoba.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are in Committee of Supply, vote 60 with respect to the estimates of the Provincial Secretary and the administrative responsibilities of that minister, not those of other provinces.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I was just making comparisons between the criticism that I get on advertising here and what really takes place in socialist Manitoba. But I did forget to say how many jobs are going to be lost with those two garment factories moving to Toronto — 1,000.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've pretty well answered the questions put to me.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the questions that I read have been standing on the order paper in my name addressed to that minister for two years. "Are they still on?" he says. That is the contempt this minister has for the people of this province. It's fine and dandy that every household in this province has to spend $22 on government advertising, and when questions are put on the order paper so that taxpayers can know where that money was spent and on what and to whom, he has such contempt he doesn't even answer.

MR. BARNES: He makes jokes.

MR. HANSON: And makes jokes. Mr. Chairman, it's despicable. We have a government whose propaganda arm is out of control — $20 million in government advertising; $1.25 million on polling in the last six years. It's incredible. And do they disclose the results? Do they disclose the questionnaires? No. It's all secret. The people of this province have a right to know, certainly when Kinsella is telling the people of this province that they were manipulated in the last election. You deliberately manipulated them. And for that, Mr. Chairman, they are going to throw you out of office in the next provincial election.

I wish, Mr. Chairman, that the people of the province could have a television camera over my shoulder and over my colleagues' shoulders when we're viewing vouchers, because they would see the tremendous waste of money that is being spent on trying to bolster the image of a government that is really against the people of this province. That's why we have the terrible unemployment, that's why our economy.... And you are directly responsible for it. Your restraint program is responsible for the lack of business confidence in this province. That's why people aren't spending; that's why we don't have a consumer-led recovery, Mr. Chairman: because of the bills introduced by that minister and the propaganda war that he's waging against the people of this province, paid for by the taxpayers, and yet he hides under a rock. He won't let them know. He's feeding every advertising company in this province — every TV and radio spot.

What we need, Mr. Chairman, are guidelines to protect the public against a government that abuses the taxpayers' money in advertising and polling. We need guidelines to severely limit government advertising.

He talks about Manitoba. Look at the Manitoba unemployment rate: it's half of what it is in British Columbia.

The advertising budget has quadrupled since we were in power in this province. We need guidelines to prevent the government from placing advertising on radio, television and newspapers that would either directly or indirectly promote the political party of the government members. Government is supposed to govern for all the people. They're not part of this Kinsella manipulation. The people of Ontario smartened up, and the people of B.C. are going to throw you out in the next provincial election. There should be guidelines to prevent the use of government logos on party propaganda. There should be guidelines prohibiting advertisements by government organizations. The letterhead of the Crown is something we can all be proud of.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: God! There should be guidelines prohibiting advertisements by government organizations during provincial election campaigns.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very ominous trend in this province that has been happening over the last few years. We

[ Page 6573 ]

have government information services operating as an arm of the Social Credit party. We have intimidation. And I say it's intimidation, because government agents want to serve the people of this province, not the Social Credit cabinet. When we've got them monitoring the TV news and feeding it back and being instructed to make sure they watch it, and we've got other people on contract all over the place monitoring the news and seeing if cabinet ministers' news clips are carried, etc., etc., what kind of a government is this anyway?

Look at B.C. Government News itself, that propaganda rag that's paid for by the taxpayers. A million copies were distributed in February, 1985. This issue was mailed to every person in B.C. The mailing costs alone were $160,000 — just to tell British Columbia what a good job they are doing as a government. The B.C. Government News is strictly a partisan piece of political propaganda by the government.

We are in a depression. The people want leadership. And that minister there has been responsible, along with the Premier and the advisers around the Premier, for the confrontation that has resulted in our dismantled economy.

He talks about textile plants in Manitoba. There's not a day that goes by in British Columbia without a plant closure and bankruptcies. While we have the bankruptcies, we have raw log exports and raw fish exports and raw copper exports. It's an incompetent government, Mr. Member.

I'd like, Mr. Speaker, to ask the minister a question. On March 13 the Premier of this province responded to a question that I asked him, taken on notice, about what firms were receiving public money for polling. He responded by saying: "Were any polling services performed by Decima Research — and this is for the government? The answer is yes." That is what the Premier said in this House. And that minister says no. I wrote to the comptroller-general asking for the Decima vouchers. He wrote back: he could not find them. In his answer, Public Affairs International, no, because it's not a polling firm. Well, I found Public Affairs vouchers attached to McKim vouchers. So his answer in the House was wrong. There may be not a polling firm, and in that sense his answer is correct. But we have not had tabled in this House those documents, so we don't know and the public doesn't know. We should know and the public should know.

Goldfarb Consultants: yes. Canadian Gallup: no. Canadian Facts: no, not in this fiscal year; they had been there in earlier years.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.