[ Page 6575 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Expo 86 souvenir sales. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6575

Investigation of escort services. Mr. Macdonald –– 6576

Public opinion polls. Mr. Hanson –– 6576

Trade and convention centre. Mr. Barnes –– 6577

Tabling Documents –– 6577

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

On vote 60: minister's office –– 6577

Mr. Williams

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Stupich

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Cocke

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to recognize and welcome 50 grade 7 students from Mitchell Elementary School in Richmond, accompanied to the legislative buildings today by their instructor, Mr. William Jack.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a constituent of mine who is also a student at the Nanaimo campus of Malaspina College and president of the students' council there, Mr. Don Hallbom. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have two special friends of many members in the House. I'd ask you to welcome Lloyd and Ruth Chamberlayne. They are presently living in Langley. They have been ambassadors of British Columbia recently, touring around the world. Lloyd Chamberlayne was very active in the Kinsmen Rehabilitation Foundation and is past president of the Canadian Paraplegic Association, B.C. division. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to make welcome today one of Victoria's senior stateswomen, residing in James Bay, Mrs. Clare McAllister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have some people visiting the House; first of all, Mrs. Margaret Stafford from Reading, England. Accompanying her are Mr. Dennis and Mrs. Jean Wooster, and along with them a lady from Vancouver, Mrs. Jill Lang, and her children Jennifer and Vanessa. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

EXPO 86 SOUVENIR SALES

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Minister of Tourism. It has been revealed that Specialty Mfg. Ltd. has been awarded a monopoly contract involving some $75 million in souvenir sales, virtually without public tender. Will the minister advise why there were no public tenders issued on this contract?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would advise the member that the source of his research is incorrect. The matter of souvenirs and novelties for Expo did go to public tender.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have it on information available that that tendering process was not fully opened: that there was not a full public tender. The question remains.

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Several B.C. business operators have requested an opportunity to bid with Expo to provide either some or all of the souvenir requirements. Expo has delegated the authority for subcontracting to Specialty Mfg. I would ask the minister what the rationale is for the delegation of this authority to a foreign-owned company.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First, I would remind the member that the firm in question, Specialty Mfg. Ltd., has been doing business in British Columbia for quite some time. Granted, they are a subsidiary of an American company, but they are not a recent company to be incorporated in British Columbia.

Secondly, when the tenders went public on the novelty/souvenir business at Expo, several companies that bid realized the tender at hand was just too large for them to consider; they wanted to bid on parts of it only. It was a decision of the board of Expo at the time that the best deal they could make would be with one company, and after careful scrutiny by the financial committee of the board it was determined to go with Specialty Mfg. I should point out that while the total contract could amount to — and probably will — in the neighbourhood of $75 million, the returns to Expo are significant — in the area of $22 million to the corporation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another supplementary. There still seems to be some disagreement in terms of the public tendering of these contracts. I would ask the minister if he has decided to table the bids that have been submitted on that contract.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: When it came down to the final bidding on the contract, there were two companies involved: a firm that is wholly British Columbia owned, and Specialty Mfg. The other British Columbia firm subsequently pulled out, and Specialty realized they were bidding against the corporation itself. The other alternative was for Expo to take on the job itself. As I said, after careful scrutiny by the financial committee of the board it was decided that the best possible financial deal that could be made was the one that they ultimately went with.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another supplementary to the same minister. Referring to a recent fraud conviction of a company owned by the same principals as Specialty Mfg., Expo finance chairman Peter Brown said yesterday: "We didn't know about the fraud conviction. We had no way of knowing it would have been a major consideration." As a member of the Expo board, why did the minister not request a full investigation before a contract of this size was awarded? I believe that's what normally occurs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I said, the in-house counsel for Expo as well as the financial committee investigated the company to their satisfaction. At the time of the awarding of the contract, there was no knowledge of the indictment regarding another subsidiary and the New Orleans world's fair. Had there been knowledge of that, the member is quite right, it could possibly have affected the decision. But this past weekend the chairman struck a committee comprised of three members of the board, in-house counsel and outside counsel considered to be the best in the field, to examine whether the corporation was at risk or whether Specialty had given the corporation cause to breach the contract, and the answers came back negative.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a new question to the minister regarding conflict-of-interest guidelines with respect to the issuing of Expo contracts. The minister recently said that the conflict-of-interest guidelines that had been drafted are perhaps the most stringent guidelines in Canada. Has the

[ Page 6576 ]

minister decided to table the conflict-of- interest guidelines under which the Expo corporation presently operates?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have no qualms about tabling such information, and I will request it from the Expo board at the next meeting. I am certain that the board, rather than try to conceal such conflict-of-interest guidelines, would be most happy to provide them to this House, as they are possibly the most stringent that have ever been laid down for any Crown corporation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Supplementary to the minister. In view of the public interest in matters relating to public expenditures by Expo, and the awarding of several major contracts under curious circumstances, has the minister decided to table minutes of meetings of the board of directors over the past two years?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The decisions of the board are made public; the minutes are not.

INVESTIGATION OF ESCORT SERVICES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General. Did the Attorney-General instigate, or was the investigation made with his knowledge and/or approval? I'm talking about the investigation into escort services in the city of Victoria that began some months ago.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the investigation was not one that I initiated but was one that the joint forces of the RCMP and the Victoria city police had already launched in this area into certain escort services.

[2:15]

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the Attorney-General another question: has the Attorney-General had discussions with the officers or prosecutors involved, either directly or through one of his agents speaking for him, in the course of this investigation leading up to the charges, and including a meeting within the last two weeks with an officer of the national crime intelligence service?

HON. MR. SMITH: The short answer to that would be no. The discussions that I had were some time ago, and they were not with the persons who were dealing with the laying of charges. I've had no discussion with such persons directly or indirectly.

MR. MACDONALD: Can the Attorney-General explain why, when the electronic surveillance — which was by camera and telephone tap and audio intercepts — was underway for the period from February 8 to April 8 of this year, the charges are restricted to a period of eight days only, namely February 14 to February 2 1?

HON. MR. SMITH: I most certainly can. I asked the same question at the time. If the inference of that in any way is that I or someone acting on may advice selected a period in which charges should be laid and therefore excluded another period or another person, it is unequivocably denied and did not occur. But the time period of February 14 to February 21 was selected by the police to be the time-frame to identify persons who were employed by the company and to obtain evidence on those persons during that period. That was the surveillance time period. Surveillance was officially discontinued following that period. There was some other surveillance that occurred later, apparently, but it was not the frame in which the police had selected for all their evidence to lay charges. There is no sinister reason for that, hon. member, I can assure you. I asked the same question at the time. I can assure you that there was no input from me or my office, directly or indirectly, in selecting times or persons or events that would be the subject of charges, nor were any representations made in any way to any prosecutor.

MR. MACDONALD: One other question to the Attorney-General. The prosecution in this case is taking the position that all of the electronic evidence, except that within these eight days, should be excluded and not made available in the usual way to defence counsel. Why is the prosecutor, who acts in the name of the Attorney-General, taking that position?

HON. MR. SMITH: Not being the prosecutor and not instructing the prosecutor and not being involved in the day-to-day conduct of these cases or the decisions that are made as to what interception evidence should be admitted or not, I can't answer that question. But I certainly recall from my own experience as a prosecutor, in cases involving surveillance, that it was often a decision that a prosecutor made to limit the surveillance evidence to a time-frame and not to broaden it and try to catch in the net all sorts of persons or individuals against whom maybe there was not other evidence — to try to limit your case and to select your charges on the basis of that material that you can clearly prove from corroborative evidence. It may have been for reasons of that kind. But as I say, I have made it a point to keep at arm's length from this and other cases and would do so, and I have not made those inquiries. I don't know.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Martin Goldfarb of Goldfarb Consultants on the weekend said that he has recently done strategic polling for the provincial government in the area of education. How many tax dollars have been used for this strategic polling around education, and will the minister table the questionnaire and the results?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It is correct, Mr. Speaker, that Goldfarb and associates did do some polling for the provincial government with respect to the Ministry of Education — for the exact amount of the account I am not sure. I can make the appropriate inquiries. As for tabling the report, I will take that question as notice, but I doubt very much if I am prepared to table the report.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Tourism. Mr. Goldfarb, in the same interview, said he has conducted similar strategic polling for the government regarding tourism issues. My question is: how many tax dollars, how many public dollars, have been used for this strategic polling around tourism, and will the minister undertake to table the questionnaire and the results of that polling in this House?

[ Page 6577 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer firstly, Mr. Speaker, is that I will endeavour to find out if there is any truth in the question that there was polling done on behalf of my ministry. If there was, then I will bring the information back to that member.

TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Tourism as well. The provincial government has already lost millions of dollars of tourist business in the province of British Columbia through its failure to strike an operating agreement for the Canada Place convention centre. According to a recent Equity magazine report....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: What's the problem? I would like to ask the Minister of Tourism.... In light of the interjections, I'll put it to you straight: has a deal been struck already and is the government waiting for the opportune moment to announce that it is now going to be operating a trade and convention centre?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, once again the member's research leading up to his question is totally inaccurate. I don't know where he gets his information or where he does his research, but I am told by the people close to the convention centre that to date not one dollar's worth of business has been lost. All I can do is say that the people that have given me this information are those in the convention business, and therefore I would tend to rely more heavily on that information than on that on which the member bases his question.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled statements pursuant to sections 41.6, 43 and 45 of the Financial Administration Act.

Mr. Speaker tabled financial statements in accordance with provisions of section 19.2 of the Auditor-General Act, 1976, chapter 3; also the 1984 annual report of the ombudsman.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Provincial Secretary estimates, I wish to defer to the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister might advise us if it's the regular pattern in his ministry to substantially increase contracts over a short period of time, particularly with McKim Advertising, the so-called agent of record. I note that they increased the amount that would be paid or budgeted for McKim during the election period in 1983 by some $2 million. I note from a public accounts document, audit control No. 6412058, that the senior vice-president of advertising for McKim in the Bentall Centre was simply advised by this minister that the March 31 date of their contract would be extended to June 1983 and the amount would be increased from $4,157,000 to $6,172,000, so that there was $2 million more in advertising during that election and pre-election period. You go through those vouchers — they're feet thick, literally — and spot advertising in every available newspaper in the province, on every radio station and on every television station.

Maybe the minister can advise us if it's standard procedure to increase the advertising fees for McKim by as much as $2 million in the pre-election period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty answering ancient history. Questions from ancient history are being put to me by members, giving voucher numbers that they've looked at. They attempt to leave some aura of suspicion over the advertising budget of this ministry. You know, we're not dealing with that particular budget today. He's talking about two or three years back.

This morning the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made some wild accusations about money paid to McKim in March 1983 for TV spots in the amount of $87, 271.50. He suggested that these were just prior to the election and that the advertising was basically political advertising. That's absolutely false information that the member for New Westminster brought to the House this morning. I've listened to a lot of these innuendoes and this false information coming to the House.

You know, because they don't have the information, they manufacture it to suit their own political purposes. The $87,000 payment to McKim that was made in April 1983, which is journal voucher 036775, was an accounting procedure to set the payment up as a prepayment for the next fiscal year –– 1983-84, for Tourism ministry advertising. It's Tourism advertising made up of a variety of spots — some in eastern Canada, some in Edmonton, some in Calgary, some in Hamilton — and they're suggesting that this advertising was done for election purposes. I get a little fed up when they dig up ancient history and half the story, and manufacture the rest, and suggest that the government's using this advertising budget for political purposes. All I can say to that is it's nonsense — manufactured nonsense — from the opposition.

[2:30]

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister who pretends to know so much can tell us when he is supposed to be accountable in this chamber for the kind of nonsense that goes on. The minister knows the system in terms of public accounts. The information that's available is only until the spring of last year. The information that is available to members of this House is till the spring of last year. If we're going to get some accountability, the time is now. You can talk about ancient history all you like; you're part of it. The numbers here are $4 million to $6 million for McKim, increased during that election period.

I want to know why that happened. I, like the member for Victoria, want to know why you don't have any guidelines around this place anymore. If you want to deal with some current history, I want to know why you're peddling all those

[ Page 6578 ]

ads on television right now, in terms of that phony partnership for renewal that was such a turkey that it would not fly.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Just a moment, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Please take your seat. Will the second member for Vancouver East please take his seat. Thank you. Now it's understandable that we may have differences of opinion from time to time. We certainly seem to be having one now. However, it is most unparliamentary for more than one member to be speaking at a time. The second member for Vancouver East has taken his place in debate and will be afforded every parliamentary courtesy and be allowed to speak without interruption.

MR. WILLIAMS: We appreciate the dulcet tones, Mr. Chairman. But the point is that there is advertising that's been going on this spring on BCTV during the newscasts, trying to patch up the image of this administration. It costs a bundle. It's that turkey called the economic partnership for renewal. It hasn't even sold.... I still don't remember it. That turkey couldn't be sold to anybody. It became such a problem that the Premier's gone off to Korea, Japan and elsewhere because he hasn't been able to peddle that one in British Columbia.

But what I want to know is how much we have been spending on that particular program currently, since the minister only wants to talk about current programs. I wonder if the minister is prepared to discuss those ads with the CRTC, since they're clearly designed so that they will appear as part of the newscast and not the phony commercials that indeed they are. I want to know if he's prepared to discuss those advertisements with the CRTC, because they're clearly an abuse. The attempt of the government in terms of that kind of phony image-making for themselves is to try and make them appear like they're part of the newscast, not commercials. It's the kind of insidious thing they did in the previous election period with Mr. Latremouille, much to the chagrin of some others.

There has clearly been an insidious game financed by the people of British Columbia, financed by the government, to appear like it's news on the newscast when in fact it's one of your phony ads. We've got the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) on there doing his particular number in terms of trying to tell us that everything is rosy in the garden of British Columbia, trying to make it appear like it is part of the newscast.

I want the minister to advise us whether he's prepared to discuss this matter with the CRTC, since clearly they've been involved in misleading advertising on the newscasts currently.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Vancouver East, I guess, is entitled to his opinion that we have misleading advertising. I tend to disagree with the member and his twisted logic on that point of view. I have not received any complaints from the CRTC. I think that Partners in Enterprise is an excellent program. I think it's one which really highlights the positive initiatives of business and government. And I think it's a time in which we must have some positive thinking, to show the kind of dual relationship there is between government and enterprise out there, rather than the doom and gloom we get from the opposition. I think it's something positive. After the very difficult economic times we've had in British Columbia, I think there's a need for some positive attitudes out there. And that's essentially what this advertising program does: it attempts to inspire people to achieve job-creating initiatives in British Columbia. There's nothing wrong with that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, you know, those willy-nillies across the way laugh away. But when it came to the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Temperate language is always a hallmark of good debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, is "willy-nilly" intemperate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's a reference to other members, and I find it unparliamentary. Please proceed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nilly-willies — I'll just swing it around.

Seriously, I think those ads are excellent. The price tag is half of what the NDP in Manitoba spent on their Jobs Fund program advertising. They spent twice as much in promoting a program that was in place in Manitoba. These socialists across the way attempt to leave the impression that they're against advertising. The only time those socialists across the way favour advertising is when they're in government. In four years the advertising budget of the socialist government in Manitoba increased by 158 percent. Needless to say, there's a need for advertising, which is recognized by that shaky socialist government in Manitoba.

We're doing advertising. I think this is a positive program we have in British Columbia, which is costing half of the kind of money expended in Manitoba for their Jobs Fund program.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister can tell me what half is. Since he wants to be so factual, what's half? Half of what?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll answer you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've been recognized, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm just telling the member to make sure he's sitting down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll look after that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The province of Manitoba expended $1.1 million on their jobs fund program; our advertising program is $560,000 —

half.

MR. WILLIAMS: We're being told it cost $560,000 to dress that turkey, a turkey that has been abandoned by the

[ Page 6579 ]

Premier, who has now flown far away. Five hundred thousand–plus to dress that turkey — my God! At a time when there are people lining up at the food banks and all the rest of it, you've got over half a million dollars to dress up that job that you've been trying to peddle. It's incredible. You were able to increase the budget by $2 million, in the election period, for McKim Advertising — it was just by accident that it was in the election period. All it takes is a simple letter to Mr. Machesney, the vice-president, saying: "By the way, dear old Mac, the number has now gone up $2 million. It was $4 million, it's now $6 million, available for spot radio all over British Columbia — just by accident." That's the way the grease pit is mined in this particular operation. That's the way it's dealt with.

Films. Great films are made under this minister. Let's look at some of those. They actually decided to film northeast coal. I don't think they've got the last chapter yet, but they sure spent quite a few bucks on the first chapter. Who would you hire? I'm sure you'd put it to tender. I'm sure you'd want to see if there was somebody like David Suzuki, somebody who is really fine in the film business. I'm sure you'd want people like that.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Exactly, you've got it. You may be slow at times, but you're fast today.

What do you think you'd pay for a script if you wanted a script for northeast coal? Ten thousand dollars is what you'd pay just for the preliminary writing of the script. Then you bill. What would be the first bill you'd send, in terms of beginning to film and locating northeast coal in this particular project? What do you think? You've already embarked on the restraint program. You've already told the folks out there: "Boy, we don't have any money for frills." What would be the first amount you'd receive and approve? The number in March 1984 for the first invoice for the film on northeast coal was $112,358. And I forgot: who would get the job? Why, I guess it would have to be a guy who was an old buddy who had hung around the Premier's office for quite awhile, wouldn't it? Mr. Dave Brown, that's who got the job. Then he invoices again for video work, and so on: $4,666.67. Then he invoices again, $4,666.67; then another, $1,001.91; and then $376; and then $75,249.33 — $218,318.60 for the film on northeast coal, for just the film to their old friend in the Premier's office, endorsed by old Doug Heal. That's the total.

But then maybe you'd want other films from your old buddy. What other films might you get from old Dave Brown? There's still a chapter to come on northeast coal, because the location problem hasn't been dealt with yet, I'm sure, on the film, but what about the rest of the films Dave Brown did during the period of restraint? Well, there's one on promoting B.C. and its opportunities. Well now, that's appropriate in a time of a Social Credit depression. A total on that was, I think, $98,000 — something or other. Then, production of an informative film on education in B.C. Well, that would be worthwhile. I wonder if they have the chapter on removing elected school boards. There's all kinds of new work for Dave Brown: (1) relocating the hole, (2) off with the heads of the school board — more work. That was $56,000. Then an informal film on health care in British Columbia, and that's substantial as well. Then production of stuff for the Knowledge Network, and on it goes.

So you know, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars for propaganda films to enhance the image of Social Credit, all at the time when you're publicly mouthing for restraint, and saying that we can't afford this, we can't afford that. The Rape Relief Centres — close them down; food banks — we got no money for the food banks. But at the same time, you've got money — hundreds of thousands of dollars — for your old buddies. You're running the biggest grease pit in this building in terms of this operation. You check the names. They're the old hacks and flacks of Social Credit — old deputy ministers, you name it. You start going through the list — some of your old buddies — and the numbers are very significant.

It's not good enough to get up like you did this morning and say: "I don't know the man's name. He's not on the payroll now." The stuff is all there in the vouchers. Somebody was signing the cheques. It's all there; the $5,000 a month for Ogden, just for filing the news. He's not on the payroll; no, he's a corporation and he bills under the name of his company, and sits on his houseboat with his little VHS and plugs in. Any steno for $1,500 a month could do it and have seven hours a day left over — you know, an hour a day and have seven hours left over. That's the kind of operation you're running. Consulting stuff all over the place.

[2:45]

People in effect take on the role of deputy ministers, get paid as consultants, people like Ian Stewart billing five, seven thousand a month to their nice little company — it's called Appin Consultants — and on it goes. It's just a grease pit operation that's going on in terms of feeding consultants and corporate names. The films and all the rest of it are there. You make the old administrations of Quebec look like rank amateurs when it comes to this kind of work. I'm afraid that it's endless, and the irony is that it should happen in a so-called time of restraint. You know, the public trough has really been available, and $2 million extra for McKim just shows how available it's been.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've just heard from a minister from the past, who is critical about an advertising budget to promote the establishment of industry in British Columbia with an expenditure of $560,000, a member who was a former minister in a former government whose major hallmark and major record as a government of British Columbia was that of waste and extravagance.

I want to tell you, I'll never forget the overrun they had — $103,000,000 overrun in one ministry of government. Before they realized there had been an overrun, somebody had to tell them. Can you imagine the Premier of the day telling the people of British Columbia: "Oh, that's just a clerical error. Blame some clerk on an overexpenditure." I want to tell you, I've never seen such waste and extravagance in British Columbia as when the socialists were in power between 1972 and 1975, when that member for Vancouver East was a cabinet minister and lived lavishly off the taxpayers of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. To all members of the committee, we have had some discussion about past accounts. We are, at this point, dealing with the estimates of 1985-1986, and I think the committee would be well served if we could stick with those estimates and the responsibilities of the minister whose vote is before us now.

[ Page 6580 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Could I mention the expensive oriental rugs the former Minister of Forests had in his office?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that would not be appropriate. Please, to vote 60.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just want to correct one exaggeration from the member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) as he was speaking this morning. I didn't keep any notes, but I happened to be going through some material that I have here. He has a tendency to exaggerate, overstating the case or manufacturing the case. He went on to say that the mailing cost for mailing B.C. Government News was $160,000. It was one-quarter of the figure quoted by the member. I just want to straighten out the record for that member for Victoria, who tends to exaggerate virtually everything he utters.

MR. HANSON: This minister's response to any requests for information or any question is to go on to some kind of spurious attack. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) raised the film production aspect of this minister's responsibilities. I'd like to just raise in this House something much more recent than the access we've had in public accounts vouchers.

Recently, around June 1 — I don't have the exact day — there was a photo opportunity in the Coquihalla for the Premier. This probably is very much along the same lines as the photo opportunities of the northeast coal — the Dave Brown films, the Jem Production films. What do we have? We have a helicopter for $2,000 or $3,000. Who paid for the helicopter? They arrived late. They wanted to lower a big steel girder for a two and a half minute ad. They were late, so there was overtime. I'm talking about the Brittain Steel camp at Dry Gulch in the Coquihalla. Familiar with it?

Here's what we have: four film crews.

MR. BLENCOE: Four?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who paid for it?

MR. HANSON: I'm going to ask who paid for it. How much and who paid for it? Who paid the overtime for the workers when the arrival of the Premier was several hours late? There is a suggestion that it is $2,500 in overtime alone, just to get the girder there behind the Premier. Think about it: the food lines are longer, the social services are cut back, the counsellors in the schools are cut back for the learning disabled kids, but we have money to send four film crews off to the Coquihalla, pay overtime and rent a helicopter.

Here's one that I think is absolutely incredible. They wanted a flat place for the Premier to stand, so the lookout over Dry Gulch and the bridge under construction in that site was filled with gravel in order to provide a smooth walking surface for the photo op. Six thousand dollars so that he could stand on a flat surface.

Okay, how are we doing so far? Four film crews. How much? The overtime at the Brittain Steel camp to wait for the Premier to arrive. How much? The overtime cost and the helicopter. How much was the helicopter? Is this all in the blanket exclusion — the pre-authorization, the preapproval for flat gravel beds in gulches so that the Premier can stand on a flat surface? How much? A wooden podium and a viewing platform were built. How much? They breakfasted all the tour members in Chilliwack, lunch at the Miller construction camp. Who pays, and how much? Then they had what they call a "heavy pastry service." What's a heavy pastry service? Gooey buns for the boys. This was at the Brittain Steel camp. It's estimated that the gooey buns and the wages involved $1,300.

So how're we doing now? We've got the flat place for them to stand, $6,000; the helicopter, $2,000 to $3,000; the overtime bill, $2,500; breakfast at the Miller construction camp at Chilliwack. Then we go on for the heavy pastry, $1,300 — for a two- and-a-half-minute commercial. This is restraint. This is cost-effectiveness. This is the taxpayers' money, spent under this minister. What do you think, Mr. and Mrs. British Columbia? It's so wasteful!

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: My question? What are these costs? Was this minister aware of the photo opportunity? Who paid for those four film crews? Was it under GIS? Was it contracted to Dave Brown? Who was in charge? How much? What was the overall cost breakdown?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I redirected the member here a while back on a question on the order paper regarding B.C. Buildings Corporation. I indicated to him that he should ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) as the minister responsible for BCBC; that he was in error asking me that question. I have to once again alert the member that he's asking the wrong minister the question, because there are no costs associated with the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services on any expenditures associated with the opening of the Coquihalla Highway. Any costs associated with that were borne by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. You'd better ask them.

MR. HANSON: Whose film crews were they? Were they under contract to the Provincial Secretary? Were they under contract to McKim Advertising? Were they under contract to government information services?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's my information that the opening of the Coquihalla Highway is a responsibility that rests with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who picked up the costs for that particular event.

MR. HANSON: Is the minister advising this House that government information services was not involved in that photo opportunity for the Premier?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm saying this is not a Provincial Secretary responsibility. It's a responsibility that rests with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Provincial Secretary is informing the Provincial Secretary on the matter. Perhaps he has more information that he could provide to the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've nothing further to say.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members — particularly the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) —

[ Page 6581 ]

interjections are unparliamentary at the best of times. Innuendo and imputation of dishonourable motive is even more unparliamentary. I will ask all hon. members to curtail any comments with respect to another hon. member.

MR. HANSON: What we have then from this minister is a redirecting to another minister, who may or may not be funding this particular photo scam. What will happen is that this two and a half minutes of film will find its way into the kind of advertising program that was discussed by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) in association with the six o'clock news. There will be a two-and-a-half-minute film paid for by the taxpayers, with a girder coming down and the Premier in his hardhat standing on a flat surface, paid for by taxpayers. Everyone around will have a bellyful of heavy pastry, paid for by the taxpayer, digesting a previous taxpayer-paid-for breakfast, flown there by a taxpayer-paid-for helicopter. Four film crews paid for by taxpayers, whether it's the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Municipal Affairs or the Premier's office itself. That's the kind of accountability we have in this province on expenditure of public money. It's a travesty. It's a shell game.

Through the procedures and the hiding behind other ministers, why can't he as a minister in charge of the advertising of this province explain to the House what the overall communications program is? Because that is what the communications program is: the lead-in to the next election. And the people of this province had better understand that they are financing this communications plan to the tune of $20 million.

How many jobs would that be, divided by $20,000 or $25,000 a year? There are a lot of people in this province that would like to be earning $25,000 a year now — $25,000 into $20 million, or $43 million including the Expo advertising budget, would put a lot of people back to work.

Well, we've talked about advertising; we've talked about polling. We get no information. In question period today we get acknowledgement from the Minister of Education: yes, we're polling. They're polling in every ministry. They're paying up to $55,000 a pop for some of these attitudinal polls; $55,000 would put two households off welfare and back on the line. But instead, what do we get? We get polling for manipulation of the public.

[3:00]

Rather than a program based on what top-quality education we should be providing in British Columbia, we get polls conducted by a Social Credit government on how far we can strip back public education. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that I'm alluding to other ministries, but the overall responsibility for public opinion polling and advertising really rests with the minister sitting there. It really is a shame.

We're going to leave this for the time being. He has other aspects to his ministry that are equally disastrous. One is the administration of democracy in the province of British Columbia, under the Election Act.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We had introduced and passed in this House a redistribution, and this side of the House moved amendments. They went something like this. We wanted the young people in British Columbia, the 18-year-olds, to have the same right as 18-year-olds have in voting in the national elections in Canada. That minister voted against it. In the International Youth Year declared by the United Nations, we moved an amendment to the Election Act to allow 18-year-olds the right to vote. That government voted against it. In other words, an 18-year-old is enfranchised and has a right to vote for the government of Canada but cannot vote for his own provincial government. I'd like 18-year-olds in this province to know that that minister voted against it.

We also moved amendments to allow people who are disabled or shut in and cannot get to the polls the right to vote. This minister is responsible for the democratic election process in this province. He voted against it. I know a woman in the city of Victoria who has multiple sclerosis, and she cannot vote in the election because she cannot get to the polls. She happens to have dual citizenship and is a citizen of France. She can vote in the French elections, but she can't vote in British Columbia. We moved an amendment that the provisions of the Manitoba elections act for voting for shut-ins be brought in in British Columbia. That minister in charge of the democratic process in this province voted against it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. In the estimates, you are dealing with the administrative responsibilities of the minister as such, and there should not be a reflection on previous votes or decisions of the House. Your comments with respect to how a member has voted or has not voted in the past would be out of order.

MR. HANSON: What I am trying to convey to the House and to the minister is that as the person responsible for the voting process he has been given a sacred trust to administer a fair, impartial, open and free democratic election. The administration of his ministry, I and this side of the House maintain, is not a free, open, unencumbered and unimpeded election process. Can you imagine why a government would make it harder to get on the voters' list rather than easier? He reduced the number of days after the election is called in which a person in British Columbia is entitled to get on the voters' list. It's a fact. To get onto the voters' list....

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, not that many moons ago we had a full debate on the amendments to the Election Act, and all these points that the member is raising now are points that were raised during the debate in second reading and committee stage of that bill. Now I hope that we aren't, after having passed legislation here just three or four months ago, going to start, now that the legislation has been given royal assent, all over again debating each and every point of that legislation, on which each and every member of this House had ample opportunity to make his point heard and to express his views.

Now we did debate at length the Election Act, and I hope that we're not going to start going through the debate of the Election Act all over again, because I'll just have to go downstairs and get my notes and waste some time. Maybe these socialists want to hang around for a while....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: If they do. I want to tell them I'm prepared to give them a full debate on the Election Act.

[ Page 6582 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. second member for Vancouver East is aware, I am confident, that when the Chair calls for order, all members should take their seat.

The Chair would be pleased to have other comments on the minister's point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister was being more orderly than usual, so I thought everything was all right, but.... My apologies.

I wonder though, you know. The minister seems a little bit touchy about that issue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, not touchy at all.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, no, not at all. Right. That's what I thought.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is on a point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. The estimates, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member take his seat, because the minister had raised a point of order. The Chair appreciates that reflecting on previous legislation, in essence, should not be conducted in estimates and would normally be out of order. But the minister's administrative responsibility under that legislation would be in order in the debate of estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think that's a good place to start.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have not been recognized.

But such debate on the minister's administrative responsibilities should not reflect on the vote.

Prior to being interrupted by the minister on a point of order, the Chair had recognized the first member for Victoria. The member will continue.

MR. HANSON: I defer to the member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, you know, the minister really was a little touchy on that one. I don't think it was the rules of the House that were concerning him.

What we've got now under the terms of this new statute that this minister administers is a situation where there are going to be two MLAs from Saanich, with 70,000 people, and one MLA from Esquimalt, with 60,000. That raises some fundamental issues about what democracy is all about. What it does is dissipate the vote of the people in Esquimalt by almost a half. Now it happens that the people in Esquimalt vote for this side of the House and the people from Saanich so far have voted for the other side. But what it raises is a basic question about democracy itself. This issue was raised in the United States 20 years ago, and it had to go to the courts to be resolved. The pattern now in the United States is that if there's a difference of over about 2.5 percent, the courts throw out the rotten distribution plans. What we're talking about is hundreds of percent in British Columbia.

If this minister is so sure that he's doing the right job by the people of British Columbia, my question is this: is the minister prepared to take this statute of his to the courts, in terms of a reference, and get some comment and judgment in view of the new charter that we have? I think if the minister really cares about democracy, we now have a charter in Canada in terms of individual rights, and surely the critical individual right is the right to vote and not have that right diluted in any way, as it is in the United States.

My question is: is the minister prepared to take this matter to the courts to get some assurance in terms of what he's done and in terms of assurance that we indeed have a statute here that meets the new requirements of the charter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 60...?

MR. WILLIAMS: My question is: on this issue, in terms of fundamental human rights, of full voting rights for all citizens of British Columbia, is the minister prepared to test his new statute with the courts to settle this question in terms of the new national charter that we have?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member obviously wasn't here during the debate of the amendments to the Election Act. It's not a new statute; it's the same statute, with some amendments. It's the same statute. He's suggesting that I should take the legislation and throw it into the courts. Talking about the old Election Act, there weren't very many changes. I don't know if there were any changes made during the NDP years between 1972 and 1975. There were no concerns then about dual ridings in British Columbia. All of a sudden the concerns have come to the surface, since that crew was in opposition. They weren't concerned when they were in government. I have no intentions of referring what is basically the most modern and up-to-date elections act in all of Canada to the courts for any decision.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm confident all hon. members are aware that in estimates you discuss and debate the estimates of the minister and the administrative functions of the minister, not legislation as such. You would debate the minister's responsibilities that are delegated to him under the legislation or for which he is responsible, but not the legislation per se or suggested changes to existing legislation.

MR. WILLIAMS: What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister himself should take this statute to the courts; that if one cares about democracy, if one has any intention of moving toward equality in our democratic system, then it demands that we move to one person, one vote. What we have here is the minister from Moose Pasture arguing for mountaintop votes. I think that we now have some protection in Canada. One would hope that the minister would be the first to move towards protecting individual rights as far as voting and elections are concerned. He can very well say we have the most modern statute in Canada. What does that mean? It means he amended it more recently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The patience of the Chair is being tried. Possibly the member could reflect on the

[ Page 6583 ]

earlier comments of the Chair, that debate in estimates is on the minister's administrative functions and not on the legislation or proposed changes of the legislation.

MR. WILLIAMS: What I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is for the minister to use public funds to take this statute to the courts, in terms of dealing with the question of whether it's adequate relative to the new charter. Is the minister prepared to take this matter to the courts to test its adequacy vis-à-vis the new charter?

[3:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I really answered that question when I stood before. The member's taking this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to put forward his representation-by-population point of view: one man, one vote. In other words, he's against the historical right of representation by rural ridings here in British Columbia, like the member for Atlin. The people from Atlin have the historical right of representation from that particular riding. I want to say that if the member for Vancouver East had his way, they wouldn't have representation in rural British Columbia as they have it today. If that's the NDP philosophy, I'll tell you, I'm prepared to fight an election any day on that philosophy. The people of rural British Columbia will never accept the premise from downtown Vancouver that they shouldn't have the right of adequate representation in this Legislature, and that's the point of view you're attempting to put across. It's not a point of view that I'm prepared to accept; it's not a point of view that the people of British Columbia are prepared to accept either.

MR. WILLIAMS: He says sure, he'd test. He'd test by his rigged game. That's the whole point: this outfit wants a rigged game. The member from Moose Pasture — you bet. That's exactly what you want. What I'm saying is that if people are to have protection in this province against the kind of games you people play, the only hope is the courts, and that's an irony indeed. One who has been a member of this Legislature as long as that minister should be prepared to protect this basic right of citizens and be prepared to go to court and get his legislation tested because of this critical question of the new charter of individual rights.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member continues to expound his representation-by-population point of view. I know that when they were in government many years ago — the only time in the last 50 years that that socialist crew have had an opportunity of being government — they did spend a lot of taxpayers' money on a redistribution commission which never saw the light of day. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money was expended on redistribution that never saw the light of day. They had the opportunity to get rid of the representation of rural British Columbia which the member for Vancouver East so much wishes that the people from the interior of British Columbia shouldn't have, the kind of representation they have now. That the representation and the power should dominate in Vancouver, should rest in Vancouver — that's what that member is advocating.

I hope the people of British Columbia listening today to the attitudes of the socialists over there, when they advocate representation by population and they have not prepared to give historical representation in British Columbia.... I want to tell you that I will tell the people of this province the attitudes of those socialists about their rights of representation in this chamber, their right to be heard in British Columbia. I want to tell you the socialists don't believe that the people of this province have a right to be heard unless they live in Vancouver. That's the attitude of the socialists. I come from rural British Columbia, and I'll fight forever for the right of the people of rural British Columbia to be heard in this chamber without being dominated by the city of Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has thoroughly enjoyed second reading of the Election Act. We are now in estimates on vote 60, and the committee could deal with the administrative functions of the minister and not other matters that are not the subject matter of this forum at this time.

MR. ROSE: I was about to observe that if the minister was going to tell the people of British Columbia all these things, all we need to do with his kind of volume is just open a window, and that bag of fetid wind would float right up to Golden. The consequences of all this is that it's a phony and it's a bum rap to talk about rep by pop in terms of the rural areas. I mean, who are going to get the new seats — Boundary-Similkameen, Kamloops? Is that Vancouver? Of course it isn't. Surrey, Fraser Valley — is that Vancouver?

Look, it isn't a case of rep by pop or not. We all know that there are certain tolerances built into any election act. We all know that. We all know that in the federal act, for instance, it's 80 percent, one way or the other. You know, all of us are well aware of that. What we object to, and what my people object to, aside from the fact we were robbed of another MLA by the definition of terms used in this act and recommended by the McAdam commission, is.... They're mad because for one thing they don't get an extra MLA and the fact is we don't need 12 more MLAs. We're talking about the cost of government and restraint. Why do we need 12 more MLAs? I'll tell you why: to make certain that the Socreds get elected despite the tatters that their current reputation finds them in. That's why we have this redistribution.

The minister is concerned about rep by pop. Let me give him a few figures here. Coquitlam-Moody is a riding containing 432 square miles of rocks and Christmas trees. Would you call that rural? No. It's called suburban under the act — 432 square miles. Central Fraser Valley has only 160 square miles, one-third of Coquitlam-Moody's area, and is designated as rural. Now how can anybody buy that argument? All right, what about the population? What was the reason for this? If you have a definition of urban or rural or suburban, it makes a difference to your tolerances, because if it exceeds your base by 60 percent then you get an extra member. But if you have a base of 38,000 members in Central Fraser Valley and you have it called rural, then you get an extra member. It's just really convenient. It really works out beautifully if you want to stack the deck, and if the person who is running your outfit is a man by the name of Mander, and his first name is Gerry, that's exactly what has happened here. I have a terrible time trying to explain to my riding why 432 square miles is called suburban — rocks and Christmas trees and rural areas that the minister defends so loudly — when Central Fraser Valley, with 160 square miles is called rural. Why? Because it has a few farms and cow barns? Does that make it rural? What's the justification for that?

[ Page 6584 ]

So the whole thing was rigged from the beginning. It was rigged from the Eckardt report, and that was further compounded by the fact that the definitions of what is rural and suburban and all the rest of it were designed to make certain that we had 12 new members which we don't need, and 11 of that 12 are in Social Credit ridings. But we're going to beat you anyway, because if we can't beat you.... I withdraw that. This bunch will beat themselves. There won't be any help from us. That's why they're doing all this polling.

I would like the minister to respond as to why a riding like mine, with 42,562 souls, is called suburban, when an urban-rural constituency with 38,000 gets two members and we get one in Coquitlam-Moody. It defies any explanation. If you look through the other ridings you'll probably find the same thing, and it was all done on the definitions of rural, suburban, remote, etc. It's not a denial of rural British Columbia for rep by pop. We can't have precise rep by pop, and any idiot knows that; but we could at least have tolerances that are applied fairly and not have the definition of the riding rigged — blatantly so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has this afternoon, in the last short while, brought to the attention of hon. members a number of times that we are on vote 60. We are not in second reading or committee on the Election Act. Possibly we could have normal, responsible debate on the administrative functions of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

MR. BARNES: Vote 60, the minister's office. Right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is to be commended.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back about half an hour, when the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was discussing the right of the 18-year-old to the franchise. You're going to suggest that I'm getting into the Election Act, but nothing could be further from the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has asked the Chair a question. The answer is in the affirmative.

MR. BARNES: I have no intention of discussing the Election Act. What I'm discussing are human rights. I'm discussing the minister's attitude with respect to a section of the population that by age is denied a fundamental right which persons of that age in the rest of Canada are permitted. That's all. This is International Youth. The minister does administer a great deal of funds with respect to a variety of activities, hopefully culture, the arts, sports, heritage, etc. Young people should be his concern, if for no other reason than that this is International Youth Year, as designated by the United Nations.

So my question really is the minister's priorities, the minister's philosophy, the spirit by which he operates his office. There are those young people in the community who I feel should be represented by that minister. He should be speaking on behalf of them. In fact, we have a debate going on in this country concerning rights and freedoms. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) has suggested that certain pieces of legislation should be tested in the courts with respect to what are basically the rights of the voters in the province.

But the question of equal rights in exercising the franchise is one that also should be looked at in light of the fact that the issue in 1985 is rights and freedoms. It is a concern of Canadians everywhere. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman. The minister hasn't discussed this topic. Forget about the legislation; let's talk philosophically. Does the minister believe that people of 18 years of age should have equal rights right across this country? Persons of that age group are able to vote for the Prime Minister of the country and for Members of Parliament. Why can they not vote for Members of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia? That's really the question. I think that question is going to come up, whether or not the minister is prepared to deal with it this afternoon, because it contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's not consistent with federal law, and it is going to be one of those matters that will have to be dealt with.

If the minister would like to respond to that specific question, I'd be pleased to give him the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

[3:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues.

MR. BARNES: I just wish that the young people in the province could be here. We've suggested in the past that we need some means of viewing this assembly through the electronic media, through perhaps television. I certainly feel that there are times when confrontation is not appropriate.

I approached this subject sincerely, Mr. Chairman, and I had hoped the minister would at least stand and give a view on the subject. It is a serious subject. It's a subject that involves hundreds of thousands of electors, persons who could be involved in the next provincial election. I wish I had the numbers. Perhaps the minister knows what the effects would be if those people had the vote. He knows what would happen, in light of the awesome policies this government has brought upon British Columbia in the past two years affecting their lives. Those policies have affected their opportunities for training and for education. Those policies have affected their ability to fulfill their dreams and aspirations, to raise their families, to enjoy the amenities of life.

The vote would affect them a great deal, and it would affect this government a great deal, if they had the opportunity to cast one. It is an issue. It is about time we took the idea of participatory democracy by all of the citizens seriously. Even those who are under 18 years of age, Mr. Chairman, should be encouraged to understand the parliamentary process. That is not the case, unfortunately. We are getting more and more into a circumvention of the due processes of democracy. We're seeing a change to a more centralized approach, and a kind of disregard for encouraging young people to get involved.

Could we not, just for five or ten minutes, have the minister stand and at least acknowledge that there's a great deal more that could be done to encourage young people to participate in politics, to be concerned about who gets elected and what their policies are and how they affect their lives? Certainly those people who are legally adults in every other respect should have the right to vote.

I think it's a shame that the minister hasn't felt any duty or obligation or desire to respond, if not for his government at least for himself, as one who believes in a democratic process

[ Page 6585 ]

and believes that all of the citizens should have a say and be able to benefit by their choices.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to press. If the minister refuses to respond, I think the record will speak for itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As your previous Chairman has noted, the debate in Committee of Supply does have limitations. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. I'm sure all members are aware of that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can’t leave the accusations made by that member for Vancouver Centre vis-à-vis youth in this province unanswered. First of all, this ministry is very supportive of the young people of this province. It's a ministry that probably has more programs for young people than any other ministry of government. We spend on the sponsoring not only of the B.C. Games but on sport activities and culture. In British Columbia we spend millions and millions of dollars, primarily directed to the young people of British Columbia. You know, I'm one who likes young people, needless to say — I should. My wife — primarily, I guess, but I had some role to play — raised six children. Between the two of us — well, not between us — we also have seven grandchildren and another one on the way next month. Mind you, I had nothing to do with it, but nevertheless I guess I did indirectly. But I have a great appreciation for the young people of British Columbia. I want to make sure that they have every opportunity, regardless of race, colour or creed. Everybody should have equal opportunities in British Columbia. I hope that the young people of this province will take an active part in politics, regardless of political affiliation. I think it's darned important that the young people become involved in politics, because politics is so important to their way of life.

On the issue of.... The member says that they should have equal rights at age 18 on the issue of voting. Well, I think they should have equal rights at 17, 16, 15 or whatever, but when it comes to voting there have to be some guidelines. In British Columbia — and it varies from province to province — we picked the age of 19. The reason we picked the age of 19 is because the age of majority is 19 in British Columbia, and we thought there was a need for consistency in that respect and that's why it's 19. We passed the legislation here just a few months ago that did not change the age of voting in British Columbia, but that does not deny the opportunity of young people participating in politics in British Columbia. It certainly gives them an opportunity to become familiar with the various political parties, and the various policies of those political parties so that they're better informed when it comes time to cast the vote at age 19.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, the committee is reminded that we cannot discuss the necessity for legislation or amendments to legislation.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I also want to thank the minister for his remarks, remarks that I found to be distinguished from remarks that he has made in the past, especially when he was in opposition and we were the government, between 1972 and 1975. It's quite a contrast, I can say that.

He has touched on a couple of points that I'd like to ask him to elaborate on a little bit further. I appreciate his explanation respecting the age of majority in the province. In light of the federal law and in light of the need to fall in line with the rights and freedoms under the new charter, the age of majority may become a question. I think this was raised by the second member for Vancouver East on another matter, but this is the kind of question that may in fact become an issue, as we have to come in line with the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I just have one other question. The minister indicated that his ministry spends millions and millions of dollars on youth programs, and I don't deny that millions and millions of dollars are being spent. I know the Lottery Fund is quite a hefty sum of money and I know that the B.C. Summer and Winter Games enjoy considerable revenues from this fund, as do probably many other youth organizations through special grants. What appropriations are made from the consolidated revenue fund with respect to youth programs, as opposed to those funds that are allocated through cultural services or through the Lottery Fund?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can get that information for you. You don't want to hear the kind of funding we have under the Lottery Fund for...?

MR. BARNES: Yes, that too.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Okay, while I'm giving the Lottery Fund allocation, maybe I can get the other information for you.

For the 1985-86 fiscal year we have approved $4,665,000 for the recreation and sport fund, which is an increase of $105,000 over last year. The Best Ever '88 Summer Olympics is an allocation of $750,000. That's for the Summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea. The B.C. Games has an allocation of $1,850.000, which is for the Summer and Winter Games.

I've given you the sports. Do you want to go beyond that? Do you want to go into the cultural activity? Okay. For the B.C. Festival of the Arts, which will be held in Prince George in 1986, we have an allocation of $500,000. The Cultural Fund has an allocation of $4,886,967, which, incidentally, is an increase of $100,000 over the previous year. The cultural heritage adviser has an allocation of $306,500. We have the same kind of allocation for the Heritage Trust — $1,250,000. The Health Care Research Foundation has $3,150,000, which is an increase of $150,000 over the previous year.

Those are dollars that are allocated from the Lottery Fund, which should be closely associated with youth in many instances.

I haven't given you the First Citizens' Fund. Many scholarships for natives are available through the First Citizens' Fund as well. I don't have the precise figures right now, but it's about $1.8 million for that particular fund, which is allocated annually.

We also have miscellaneous grants as well from the lotteries in the amount of $1,158,000 that go to a variety of organizations in British Columbia. It would be involved with youth, such as the Air Cadet League of Canada, the Army Cadet League of B.C., Big Brothers, an affiliate of Big Sisters of B.C., Boys' and Girls' Clubs of Canada, Boy Scouts of Canada, B.C. Lions Society for Crippled Children, Timmy's Christmas Telethon, and a whole variety of other

[ Page 6586 ]

organizations who get some of their operating funding from my ministry in the amount of $1,158,000. There could be other small bits and pieces as well in the ministry which we haven't quite identified right now.

[3:45]

MR. BARNES: This is a very productive exchange between the minister and I, because he seems to be in a nice-toned voice, providing information, so hopefully we can continue to make progress. The minister will recall that a few years ago the Lottery Fund was restricted to arts, culture and recreation, and it has, over the past six, eight or ten years or so, been expanded. As well, there was at one time a cultural facilities fund dealing primarily with capital costs on a cost-shared basis — one-third by the province, one-third by the municipality and the society that was applying. This type of arrangement was in place.

I understand that the policies under this government are quite contrasted to those of the previous government, when we were in power. However, many persons who are purchasing lottery tickets, who are encouraged by virtue of the ads that they see on television, that they are going to be able to participate in helping youth, helping culture, helping the arts, helping sports, etc, etc., by buying these tickets.... They are willing to engage in the promotion and the purchase of these tickets, feeling, in part, that although they may lose, they win. It's sort of like you really can't lose if you take the view that the funds are going to be used in these very important community projects.

There was a time when the government appropriated more funds out of consolidated revenue, and this has changed. I don't have the figures, unfortunately, but I know they exist. There was a time when the Lottery Fund was not entirely relied upon. It has become now, perhaps, the sole source of funding for these activities.

I'm wondering if the minister could clarify for the committee what percentage of the Lottery Fund — through the cultural services branch, I believe — is made available for the capital cost of constructing new cultural facilities. I understand you do have a freeze. At least, in talking to the director of the lotteries branch I gathered there is a freeze on for such capital funding, and has been for about the past three years. At one time there were some funds available. What is the status of that fund today with respect to providing the capital cost of cultural facilities?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the recreational facilities fund, prior to the restraint program and the serious downturn in government revenue, was funded directly through general revenue. Since the downturn in revenue to government we've had to put a moratorium on that particular fund. In other words, there has been no funding coming from general revenue to look after the needs of recreational facilities, nor the capital costs of cultural facilities in the province. Essentially what has happened is this. As the fund builds up, from time to time we remove the moratorium until the commitment is such that down the road we can see there's going to be a serious drain on the fund.

At the moment we have a tremendous number of applications for not only recreational facilities but also cultural capital projects, which are being held in abeyance until such time as the government determines whether the moratorium is going to be taken off in order to address this demand. I think the funds are there. It's just a question of the government making a determination to remove the moratorium. That hasn't been done yet, but I'm optimistic that it won't be too long before it is.

MR. BARNES: This is quite helpful. I'm getting inquiries from a number of organizations that are hopeful of getting some assistance from the province. And I'm hoping that the province does indeed place high on its list of priorities the need to fund those ventures in the cultural community. There  is one organization I'm thinking of, in the city of Vancouver, that has built a complex that will distribute film and do production as well. I won't name the organization, but it is this kind of organization that is capable of generating a fair amount of economic activity in the community, as well as encouraging local artisans, technicians and people in the cultural community to exploit their field of expertise to the benefit of the community. It certainly would fall in line with the government's stated intention of stimulating economic activity, small business, encouraging entrepreneurial activity. Many of these people, as the minister realizes, are self-employed and usually don't qualify for unemployment insurance. Quite often they'll do everything they can to avoid receiving social assistance, etc. They are just committed to their art, to their craft.

I would hope that in making a decision or a judgment with respect to the value of capital funding for such organizations the minister will use the greatest latitude in his determinations and recognize the economic multiplier effect that is the benefit from those dollars in those areas, which I think have unfortunately been overlooked quite often by the great economic academics of the community in their view of what is good economic investment and what is good business and what yields the greatest profit for tax dollars spent. I think that this cultural thing, this artistic community, has proven time and time again to be a very, very good investment of taxpayer dollars, and to be the type of activity that is just good business. Some estimates are that a dollar spent in the arts-cultural community is anywhere from two to five times its investment, depending on what area you're looking at. Certainly tourist dollars are attracted to the arts community, and big business is attracted to the cultural amenities available in the community. For instance, you were speaking of rural areas, places up north or wherever. Even where we have the hole in the ground there are probably some pretty sophisticated amenities available. There's probably a theatre in the area, and a movie-house; a variety of activities that will allow people to maintain some mental stability during the hours when they're not working for their families, children and so forth.

These are not often recognized and fairly compensated for in terms of the benefits and advantages that legislators often will give other ventures, say explorations of various natural resources, or someone who is prepared to put capital into the creation of a new manufacturing plant, etc. I would just ask, in the spirit of cooperation, that the minister recognize that it is very good business indeed to invest funds in the arts, especially in the capital construction facilities such as the one I just mentioned with regard to filming, film distribution, production, etc.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I certainly recognize the kind of economic contribution that culture makes to the community in British Columbia. That's one of the reasons why, I guess,

[ Page 6587 ]

our funding has been increased to the various groups and societies in this province. I know that we haven't freed the capital yet for these cultural activities for capital projects, but as I said a little earlier, I'm fairly optimistic about that.

I might say that I've gained a greater appreciation of the contributions that culture makes to the community and to the economy of the province since I've become Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services.

Two or three months ago I hosted a conference in the city of Vancouver, a conference on culture at which all the provinces and territories and the federal government were represented. We had a very worthwhile meeting, a good discussion; it was the first time since I've been minister that we've been able to get the federal government to sit down and discuss matters of mutual interest as far as culture is concerned. I was very enthused about the meeting. I might say that the people in my ministry's cultural branch have put together a small slide show that really does spell out the economic benefits generated by cultural activities in a community, and that after showing this small slide show to other provinces and the federal government, the federal government was so interested that they bought slides from us, not only for themselves but for all the provinces, because the provinces had a real interest in trying to tell that story as it relates to their particular province as well. So they purchased it. The federal government wants to be able to translate our slide show into the two national languages.

Yes, we have an appreciation of the economic spinoff, which I really identified this morning in my opening speech when I talked about the Festival of the Arts going to Prince George; the kind of people who will flow into Prince George, the kind of economic stimulus it will be for that community just in front of their summer tourist season. It will put 1,500 additional people into Prince George for several days, which will be very beneficial to that particular community. I know full well the kind of spinoff benefits there are from cultural activities in the province.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Why not? Why confrontation all the time? We can get just as much accomplished, especially with guys like you. The other way it doesn't work: I know that. I don't want you to start yelling about jobs and getting into what we used to in the old days. There are some policies that I feel are perhaps more akin to your side of the House than mine, but I think there is a point where we could come together.

For instance, you were talking about the kinds of benefits that the various provinces could see in the creation of slides in order to present a certain image that they felt would be educational or useful to the public. Expo has appropriated half a million dollars for a similar project in the public school system, to — on the face of it — try to educate students with respect to the benefits of the world fair that we'll be having here next year. There are some criticisms with respect to the fact that it's one of those large megaprojects; the timing of it, the irregularity of it, sort of stands out as a rather unique expenditure in light of the cutbacks that have taken place in the public school system, particularly some of the more basic special needs programs that the Minister of Education has stridently insisted had to be carried out.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Having said that, I'll get back to the tone and tenor of our exchange, which I thought was conducive to some progress. I wanted to ask the minister if, in acknowledging the extent of his education and learning about the economic and spinoff benefits of the arts, he has considered the benefit of expending more funds to allow artists into the public school system. This touring concept, as I'm sure you're very aware.... You must be getting applications for funding all the time for artists to tour; that is, cultural troupes and companies of artists to engage young people, especially in some of the remote and outlying areas, where about the only big events are those brought about by the touring arts organizations that come in and become, so to speak, residents in the school system. They'll share a creative artistic experience, unfortunately a rather rare opportunity for students in our somewhat tightly budgeted public school system.

[4:00]

That specifically, Mr. Minister, is the one question: the policy of the government with respect to funding touring companies and the artists who might live in residence. That has in the past been practised in the province of British Columbia, but usually it's fraught with a great deal of difficulty because of lack of funding. The benefits, as the minister acknowledged in one aspect of our discussion, are immense. Certainly with the stresses of the times and the quickly changing academic community, we need to develop that side of the learning mind that is more creative and allows for more imagination and inventiveness, and a sense of freedom, even if it's in the imaginary. It stimulates these young people and encourages them to feel they can do some things independently, despite the rigidity of what is happening in the public school system due to restraint and government policy respecting what the basic curriculum should be.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the touring programs, we.... For art events, grants are available to assist both non-profit community organizations in sponsoring professional performing arts events and school districts in sponsoring arts enrichment programs. In 1984 we approved an amount of $223,045. In the present estimates we are discussing now — 1985-86 — we have $234,000. So we have made an ongoing commitment to touring facilities for cultural groups in British Columbia.

We have also allocated $200,000 from lotteries for Expo-related touring in B.C. — in other words, for cultural groups that come to the province during 1986 — which is a new allocation over and above what we've been doing in the past. So there is an additional sum of money for various cultural groups that come to Expo from other countries or other provinces, which will assist them in doing any touring they wish to do in British Columbia. That's the allocation during the current fiscal year. It is more than likely there will be additional moneys in the next fiscal year to look after the Expo year. This money is the organizational money that's being put in place. So there'll be some additional money earmarked for touring during the next fiscal year — not the current one.

I know that the VSO would very much like to carry out a tour of British Columbia. They've enjoyed their previous tours in British Columbia. I forget the specific dollar value they've attached to a tour of British Columbia. I know that we've helped the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra to go to Tsukuba, Japan, to Expo 85, by allocating a sum of

[ Page 6588 ]

$100,000. We're essentially supportive of cultural groups touring in the province.

MR. BARNES: You know, as I was sitting here and just reflecting on days gone by, I was thinking of the minister's comment a few years ago with respect to a collection of art works compiled during the previous administration. Our Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Bill Hartley, compiled some very valuable pieces of art, and I hope that before we wind up, the minister will indicate their present location and what has happened to that collection. Anyway, the humorous point of the thing is that — and I am sure the minister was just joking — he referred to that art as garbage art. Mind you, you know, we all like to have a little fun. But I wonder if the minister ever did really take a look at that art? I just give you that as an aside. It was a few years ago, and we may have in our midst, in these days of restraint, quite a valuable collection of art works, which includes such names as Tony Onley — to mention just one — who is one of the few artists who have been successful in getting the kinds of benefits through the taxation system that many other artists have been unable to get.

Could the minister also indicate the manner in which he engages the B.C. arts advisory board? We have often said on this side of the House that that board should by rights, in order to truly reflect the needs in the community, especially in the outlying areas, be representative of the councils and of the needs in those areas through some kind of electoral process. In other words, if those people were able to sit as representatives of those regions.... In some regions in the province of British Columbia, the contrast is so great, the needs are so different, that when one talks about arts and culture, one is hard-pressed to define what one is talking about. I went on a tour a year and a half ago, and we were in the Kootenays. There was one set of needs and one set of problems in there because of accessibility, transportation problems, availability of resources, etc. It's something else on Vancouver Island. It's something else up near Prince Rupert, in the Queen Charlotte Islands or up in Atlin. But all of these places have to be viewed in terms of cultural policy in the province of British Columbia, and all of them are diverse and very complex. Probably no one person, no matter how well-intentioned or experienced, can really represent those needs. So there has to be a local regional approach.

My question is one that was raised time and time again on that recent tour that I took, with the cultural policy with my party. We're wondering if the minister is satisfied that the present system and his advisory board members are really able to reflect those needs. In fact, are they able to operate with authority? In other words, have they the ability to implement their mandate?

The limitations on being an advisory board would suggest that they don't have the real power — in other words, the budgetary power — that they really need in order to be able to do the kinds of research to follow up on the support that the various regions require. Could the minister comment on the amount of funds that the B.C. Arts Board is in fact able to use in meeting its mandate as required by the cultural arts community?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, the member talks about the art collection that was collected some years ago by a former government in British Columbia at a cost of about $900,000. Certainly there is some of that art that is valuable and that has appreciated in value. Unfortunately I can't think of the name of the artist which I have in my office which comes out of the art collection. It's a beautiful painting, and I have a Tony Onley in my office, and I'm sure that the Shadbolt paintings as well are worthwhile.

But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the government between 1972 and 1975 was not very selective in what they bought, in what they called art. The member chides me about my remark about garbage art in the old days in Public Accounts back in the early seventies. I was deadly serious when I said that that was garbage art. I wasn't really referring to every piece of art that had been gathered by that former government, but I'm just as much an expert as you are. Everybody has their own different appreciation of art. But some of that art which had been purchased by the government was pornographic. There's no doubt about that. It was in bad taste, not only in my opinion, but in the opinion of most people of this province. And a lot of it was a waste of money. But certainly there were some pieces of that art that were worthwhile. When I called it garbage art I really meant it, but really was not meaning every piece of art that had been gathered. So all I'm trying to say is that the government of the day was not too selective. They attempted to pacify every artist and everybody who aspired to be an artist in British Columbia by acquiring some of their art.

Now on the Arts Board. The Arts Board really has regional representation, and it's representation from all across British Columbia. We ensure that the representatives on that board are representatives of the various regions of British Columbia. In fact, I just received a letter; we have one vacancy on the board right now. It's a vacancy, in my opinion, that rightfully belongs in Vancouver. We had an application from an individual in Kamloops that wanted to fill our vacancy. I indicated to them that the vacancy would be filled from Vancouver, because the Kamloops region basically is already represented on the board.

[4:15]

So yes, the Arts Board has a regional representation. They are responsible for the allocation of the funds that are available to the various cultural groups in British Columbia. They are advisory to the minister. They make recommendations to the minister as to how the funding should be allocated, organization by organization, and they do it in cooperation with the director and the employees of the cultural branch of my ministry. So they basically will not determine the amount of funding, but they will advise me as to how the funds should be allocated and to which organizations.

MR. BARNES: Just for the record, what did you say about the Arts Board? Are they appointed or elected?

HON. MR. CHABOT: They're appointed by us on recommendations from the community.

MR. BARNES: Appointed by the ministry. Well, it could work, but there is some question that that could become a problem. It has been a problem, but I don't think we need to do any more than recognize the system as it is, and the changes that have to be made will be made by those who are able to make them. I think that I'll leave it at that.

You were talking about this garbage art, and I simply have to say a little something on that. You're quite right when you say that your opinion about what good art is is as good as anybody else's. That's one of the problems with it, isn't it?

[ Page 6589 ]

However, I'm going to remind you of something that the Premier said soon after you said that, because.... In fact when he said what he said, I was a little hesitant to take him up on it, because in order to get into a fight, you have to bring yourself along, and that can be dangerous.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, no, it was your Premier who said that good art was in the eyes of the beholder. He suggested that if anyone wanted to contest that matter, he would take all of the art, put it out in front of the Legislature and leave it up to the public to decide. I wonder about that. That might not be such a bad idea. We could find that art and put it out there and maybe have a.... I want to see some of that pornographic stuff you were talking about. You know, let's face it, when that issue was raised and you were making those remarks, the situation in B.C. was quite different. We've become quite enlightened in the last year or two. Things are changing very fast. That's one of the dangers, in fact, of things happening so fast. We can't keep up. Those old-timers like you and I have real problems trying to determine what's going on anymore around here. But what people are watching on television....

AN HON. MEMBER: We're offside.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's not unusual, Mr. ex-Attorney-General and House Leader. Being offside can sometimes be the best way to get a vantage point on things. You know, back in the old days when I played ball, we used to have what we called a dead-man play. Do you know what a dead-man play is?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, what is it?

MR. BARNES: That's when you run from scrimmage and get downfield and you fall down and stay down. You get into the crowd where no one can see you. Everybody huddles up, and then you sneak out of the crowd and run down to the end zone and get a pass. They finally outlawed that, though. That was in the good old days.

We have to invent things as we go along to survive in this business, you know. But I think we are slowly making progress.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we've now reached a point where I'd like to challenge the minister. I'm sure he's ready for a challenge, because his remarks have indicated that he has become enlightened, despite his remarks about garbage art over the past. He has come to see more things, and this is the beauty of allowing yourself to be open to change and receptive to suggestions. You allow some time to make a decision and to reflect on things, so progress is being made very, very slowly, but nonetheless it's being made.

The minister indicated that something like $900,000 was expended from the.... What was that fund? The cultural services fund?

AN HON. MEMBER: Back of the truck.

MR. BARNES: Back of the truck — the art. All right, $900,000 on the garbage art. I don't know how he got those assessments or came up with that value. This is an important subject we're talking about, because if you were to take those pieces of art and count them and assess them on the amount of energy that was expended in terms of the individuals who created them, whether it was pornography or whatever, and took a look at where that person came from, we could find out the immense amount of energy that goes into every single utterance by those people. And what we've been saying on this side of the House all the time is that that's important. That group of people who do those kinds of things are very important, and they should be sharing on an equal basis and getting equal opportunity, equal access to what the good life is supposed to be about, and recognized and given status in society. Certainly we don't hear about artists going bankrupt the way we hear about businesses that are being subsidized by government going bankrupt, but you can be sure that they are bankrupt from the start. Most of them are making a contribution, a donation, and most of them — and I say this with caution.... Many of them could be considered ripped off by standards of fair remuneration for the efforts that they put out as to what they normally would get in terms of the minimum wage, for instance, for their efforts.

I think that we're making progress. We're beginning to see that there is a very large segment of our society who, for lack of organization, for lack of the ability to lobby or perhaps because of not being politicized sufficiently well to know the strength and power they have, are just going along loving what they're doing, taking whatever they can get. But I can assure you that the evaluation, the appreciation of most works that are created by artists, many, many times over, multiplied in a very short space of time.... Most purveyors of the arts and dealers in the arts recognize this full well.

But how many artists do we see riding around in Mercedes-Benzes or living in fancy hotels or wearing fancy clothes? Most of them are spending day and night, all of their time, trying to do their art, and we're calling them hippies and losers and welfare bums and just about everything else. But those people are committed to something that we need, and most of us benefit by it and would be in very bad shape if we had to rely on those people who are upwardly mobile, motivated toward upward mobility, to grab onto all those things in life and abandon those values. We should want them to continue doing what they are doing. We should compensate them fairly and recognize what they are doing. In other words, we should get off their backs and have them join in the good life.

I think what I'm going to do, Mr. Chairman, is allow the minister, if he wishes, to respond. I have some matters on another subject that I will save for a later point in the debate. But I want to thank the minister for his attention. I think that we have been making some progress and getting some understanding about the government's position with respect to the state of the arts in the province.

MR. STUPICH: I don't know why, but I think I want to get into this garbage art business just a little. My opinion is worth just as much as the minister's on this subject, and I share his opinion with respect to some of that so-called art. But I think the idea was a good one. The proposal, from the beginning, was that 1 percent of the cost of any building being built by the government would go towards encouraging B.C. artists by buying their art and showing it for public display. Perhaps where the process fell down was that we relied on the artists themselves to establish a committee that would make the decision as to what art should be bought. While in some instances they made what I thought were good

[ Page 6590 ]

choices, in some instances I share the minister's opinion with respect to some of the choices they made.

I was interested in the discussion between the first member for Vancouver Centre and the minister about the use of lottery funds. That discussion was all about using it for culture and arts. I want to urge that the minister look at it a little more broadly than that. In the past it would seem to me that it's all gone into massive projects in Vancouver — B.C. Place, Expo and things like that. Not all of it has, but it's heavily oriented that way. I know that the minister said something recently that prompted the chairman of the recreation commission in Nanaimo to submit a series of applications to the ministry for assistance from the Lottery Fund for six projects totalling in costs some $332,000, with the grants at something less than half of that — a total of $155,500. They are still waiting for some response. I did check with the minister's office and was told that the decision had not yet been made as to whether or not funding for these kinds of projects would go ahead.

While the minister is considering extending the use of lottery funds for cultural projects and the arts, I hope he wouldn't neglect projects such as this which are oriented towards recreation as opposed to culture and art. They are all good projects: the development of an existing swimming pool so that it will be usable for a longer period of time, the improvement of playgrounds and things like that. In every instance the recreational director would like to have some evidence of government support so that he can go to the council and persuade them that this is worth going ahead with because we're going to get some help from the government. If he doesn't get help from the government, then it's going to hard for him to sell that to the council. So I would hope that the minister would look favourably not just for requests like that for Nanaimo but from all over the province.

There's another request from Nanaimo. The mayor wrote to the minister about the Bastion. I don't think I need to say very much about that. It's well known all over the province. The heritage branch of the ministry did do an initial survey and recognized that significant damage.... I was going to say "done," but it's not done; it's just that it's aging. It is in a damaged condition. The mayor has requested that the heritage branch do a further study to determine the costs of improving it. I don't know whether that letter has been answered; it's dated April 29. I'd appreciate the minister's looking into that. We are into the tourist season. I'd like to know what's happening on that.

On the lottery funds themselves, I'm really intrigued by the estimate for the Lottery Fund. I note that we're going into this year, April 1, 1985, with a balance of $43,022,938; that's in the book of estimates. To eight significant figures you know how much money was in there. I don't know when this book was printed, but you knew that would be the figure on March 31. I think that's pretty good. You also expect to raise $78 million from lotteries; that is, the take for the fund will be $78 million, out of which you're going to spend $69,340,000. You're going to gain $8,660,000 in the fund, and you're going to end up on March 31, 1986, with $51,682,938, to eight significant figures again. If the minister is that good, then he must be able to tell us exactly what projects are going to be funded during the next 12 months. I'd appreciate getting some information from him, to eight significant figures, as to just what's going to be spent on the various projects that will be helped by the Lottery Fund. It would seem to me that the minister's plans must be very well formulated to be able to do that.

There are some stories — and there are some quotations from the minister — about the system of selling lottery tickets and the concern that some organizations have had. There is a newspaper story here: "Lottery Aid Drying Up; Non-profit Groups Seek Meeting with Chabot." Mr. Lodge, secretary of the United Commercial Travelers in Victoria, said that the service club recently went to the lottery commission to discuss declining revenues, and was told there that eventually there would be no revenue from this source.

There's another newspaper story, dated February 9, with a picture of the minister, saying: "'We are looking at the plight of the non-profit societies and the impact the changes have had over the last three years,' he said in an interview." I wonder if the minister is still looking into that; whether he is contemplating any changes; whether he does expect that this is going to be phased out completely, or whether some method will be taken to continue.... "I would like to see them work for it." The minister said they're doing nothing for it. Well, they did a lot for it at one time; and through their service, through their attention at the local level to the way they worked to build up their own revenues, they actually helped the ministry, because the ministry was getting a cut on all of this, of course. I think it's a shame that they were left out of it. I don't know whether the minister has any plans, whether he's looking at this at all at this time.

[4:30]

[Mr. Kempf in the chair]

I'm wondering if the minister can tell us — I think he can, from the exact figures in estimates — how the sales of Pacific Express are standing up, compared to what the Lottery Fund was getting from the sales of Western Express previously. I have one newspaper story here from the Times-Colonist, May 8, 1985, saying that the Western Express sales, even though B.C. is out of it now, are actually higher than they were before B.C. was in it. I find that hard to believe, but it's in the newspaper, so it must be true. I wonder what's happening to the Pacific Express sales and how their sales are standing up, compared to the situation before.

A different question. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), I think, raised the question of the government newspaper that went out commenting on the budget. This story refers to the minister's saying that there were 1.2 million copies of that newspaper. The minister said it cost pennies a copy. A government spokesman said that the newspaper cost $100,000 to write, print and mail. Mr. Chairman, that works out to 8 1/3 cents per copy, including all costs of writing, printing and mailing. I wonder whether the minister wants to associate himself with that cost per copy — whether it can be done for that price.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Cost per copy?

MR. STUPICH: It was 8 1/3 cents, 1.2 million copies; a total cost of $100,000 to write, print and mail. Mr. Chairman, if another zero was added it might be more believable. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

There's one other thing I want to talk about. There was discussion earlier this afternoon about the redistribution commission report, and the fact that it has yet to see the light of day. Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has been around long enough to remember a previous royal commission report

[ Page 6591 ]

that was a long time seeing the light of day: the Carrothers commission report. Perhaps not. It was a report commissioned before your time by the coalition government and delivered to the then Provincial Secretary, the Hon. W.N. Chant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fred Carrothers?

MR. STUPICH: I'm not talking about the redistribution; I'm going back into history a little now. He wasn't on the redistribution, but he did a report on bargaining rights for government employees that was delivered to the then Provincial Secretary, Hon. W.N. Chant. That report saw the light of day when the then Provincial Secretary, Hon. Ernest Hall, found it in the garage of the previous Provincial Secretary, Hon. W.N. Chant. The redistribution report was commissioned by the NDP administration and delivered to the government by the then deputy Provincial Secretary, who was Deputy Provincial Secretary under the W.A.C. Bennett regime and the Dave Barrett regime, and was still Deputy Provincial Secretary under the W. Bennett regime. He was also secretary of the redistribution commission.

My question to the minister: when did that Deputy Provincial Secretary and secretary of the commission deliver that royal commission report on redistribution to the Provincial Secretary? If he has trouble finding the answer....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The judge. Norris.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: I think the minister will find that that report has still to see the light of day, because it was delivered to the Social Credit Provincial Secretary and it's still in the files of the Provincial Secretary — in other words, in the files of Hon. J. Chabot, who is keeping it from the light of day. No one other than this government has kept it from the light of day.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Only in British Columbia, you say? Pity!

Vis-à-vis Western Express, our sales in British Columbia are 350,000 tickets. That was the number of tickets we printed, I should say; we now print 600,000. I don't know precisely where the sales are now. We ran out of tickets for the first two or three draws. The 600,000 tickets were purchased. I would guess we'd be in the $500,000 sales level right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were selling 350,000?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right.

I've recently written a letter to the mayor of Nanaimo. You were wondering — I think it was last week — about the Bastion issue, the issue of non-profits. We had a meeting. That's the non-profit organizations that previously, when the distribution of lottery tickets in the province.... Because the Bank of Commerce was not prepared to continue making tickets available through their various branches, the lottery corporation had to look at a different mechanism for the distribution of tickets in B.C., and therefore selected the Western Canada Lottery Foundation as that mechanism. That has certainly been cost-efficient. There's no doubt about it.

The distribution of tickets is the least costly of any province in Canada. Recognizing the need for funds by these various non-profit and charitable organizations who were previously a part of the distribution system in the province and who helped to build up the lottery corporation and its retail network in British Columbia, we established a formula wherein they were to be paid 6 percent of sales generated through their various retailers. They would continue to be credited for the distribution factor.

One of the problems this has generated, I guess, is the fact that computer games have come on the scene — that is, 6-49 and Lotto West. That has turned the sales of conventional lottery tickets down, and has impacted on the revenue for these non-profits. Some of those non-profits are getting money for doing nothing and are probably embarrassed by the riches, but many have worthwhile charitable endeavours which they need funding for.

We met in my office with this group of former distributors four or five weeks ago. We had a two-hour meeting, and discussed a variety of options and the dilemma that they face. I indicated to them.... I think I gave them a deadline that I would come up with an answer within 60 days. They wanted to know a time-frame so that they wouldn't be spun out much longer. I'm about to give them an answer on that. We haven't worked out all the details of it, and I hope to have an answer within the next couple of weeks for these non-profits. I think it will resolve many of the problems that they have today. We certainly have been addressing it, no doubt about that.

I guess that pretty well answers the questions. I don't want to get into the redistribution thing and all that. The NDP....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, it's ancient history now. I don't mind tabling it in the House if you want. Can somebody get a copy? No, nobody here has a copy. I don't mind tabling it in the House.

There was great urgency on the part of the NDP in December 1975 to go to the electorate before they could implement this Norris redistribution. What came first? This is not the chicken or the egg. What came first, the redistribution report being tabled and implemented or rushing to the people before they found out the kind of deficit that had been incurred by that government between 1972 and 1975? I want to tell you that the NDP of the day, that poor government in British Columbia, said at that particular time: "We'll take the expedient solution. We'll rush to the people before they know what kind of financial mess we're in in the province of British Columbia."

MR. STUPICH: I don't quite know how we got into the deficit that this administration created on March 31, 1976, three and a half months after the election, but we'll leave that for now. At least the minister has — and it's on the record — admitted that the report never saw the light of day because his government chose not to let it see the light of day. It was not us; it was that government.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, as the minister is most likely aware, I have some specific concerns in terms of an issue that we've talked about for some time now. That issue is the proliferation of commercial bingo halls. I might point out that this issue came to my attention through a number of concerns

[ Page 6592 ]

in the communities of Okanagan North addressed to my constituency office there. A number of organizations and charities in the community expressed some very serious concerns with respect to the revenue they were losing in the Kelowna area and the potential loss of revenue in the Vernon area as a result of the establishment of commercial bingo halls in those areas. Since I originally addressed it some time back in April, this problem has expanded considerably in scope as a result of the concerns addressed here in the House and suggestions I made in terms of bringing this issue to an impartial inquiry. I've received numerous letters, from not only my area but throughout British Columbia, which basically reiterate the fears experienced by charitable organizations in the Okanagan.

Recent amendments to the regulations brought in through the Provincial Secretary's office sometime last fall have allowed for the proliferation of these commercial halls. I would like to point out what has been experienced in the Kelowna area since the establishment of commercial halls there. I'll just grab the.... It's here somewhere. If the minister will just hang tight for half a sec, I'll get to it.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: If you want to respond while I find the paper.... I was caught a little bit off-guard by....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm just going to step out for a minute while he's finding his papers.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions with respect to the Lottery Fund in general. It's my information that gross sales in the 1983-84 fiscal year were $175 million. Out of this, $59.3 million or 34 percent was turned over to the lotteries branch under the Provincial Secretary, $24 million was paid out to community groups and projects, and $35.3 million is sort of unaccounted for — in the sense of: where does it go? If it goes into the fund, where is it directed? I wonder if you would bring that to the attention of the minister. That's to the deputy — through you, Mr. Chairman. We've been in contact with the Lottery Corporation in Richmond, and they indicate that the 1984-85 estimate will be something in the order of $251 million gross, which means approximately $87.9 million could be turned over to the lotteries branch.

[4:45]

My question to the minister is: how much will go for projects under the regulations and so on, and how much will go into Expo? I think the public that is buying these tickets deserves to know precisely what the full accounting of the revenue taken in by the lotteries branch is. So as soon as the minister returns, I would certainly appreciate you bringing those to his attention.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I apologize for the slight delay, I just had to locate the proper paper. In going back to reiterate what I was saying, concerns in regard to the transfer of proceeds from community bingos as a result of the proliferation of the commercial halls came to light first in the Kelowna area. I might point out some of the specific problems that have cropped up in that area as a result of, I think, two halls — perhaps there are more open now, but two halls that were open at that time.

The Royal Canadian Legion in the Kelowna area last year donated over $15,000 to charity. Since the halls opened in the Kelowna area, they had been in a position of revenue loss of about $4,000 in the 12 weeks prior to mid-April. The Indian Friendship Centre was making in the neighbourhood of $30,000 to $40,000 a year, again from bingos. I might point out that this money was vetted through the community through a number of different community projects that the centre put on. They've had to cancel their bingo and go into renting a commercial hall. One of the problems that is experienced is because of the rental of the hall — the high cost of hall rental. They have found that their revenues — their take, if you like — have been reduced substantially.

Another example — again, these organizations brought their concerns to my office — is the Elks club, again in Kelowna, which raised $125,000 last year for the hearing and speech-impaired and which, since the commercial halls opened in that area, has been losing money on its bingos and are in a position of possibly having to cancel them.

So we've got a situation where we've got a squeeze on the bingo dollar — I guess that's the best way to describe it. It's not that perhaps there isn't a place for these commercial halls; there very well may be. But I think we have to look at or reassess the present regulations, to ensure that if these halls are allowed to proliferate they don't squeeze the traditional charities in the fight for that bingo dollar.

Two halls have now opened in the Vernon area, and as a result of that the local charities and service groups in that area in the North Okanagan are beginning to experience the results of the competition. I might point out that the Elks club last year gave over $11,000 to charity in Vernon, the Royal Canadian Legion about $90,000, and the Eagles, again in the Vernon area, about $45,000 to $50,000 a year in charity. As well, the Schubert Centre, which is a senior citizens' complex in the Vernon area that relies on the proceeds from the bingos that it runs, is possibly in danger of not being able to make their mortgage payments as a result of a loss of revenue from competition from these halls.

Now the case has been made that these commercial halls in fact expand the opportunities for profits to be made through the running of the bingo games. There's no doubt about it that in many cases that has happened. But the critical issue here is that these proceeds are distributed to far fewer charitable and community organizations than has been historically the case. I might point out that through these various clubs in the Vernon area, they distributed proceeds from their bingos to over 110 different community groups. There are over 110 different groups that directly benefited from the proceeds of the bingos.

Just let me digress for a moment to show this by way of example. This is the Royal Canadian Legion in Vernon. Last year, as I mentioned, they donated over $88,000. Listen to the organizations they donated that money to: the United Way; the school for the mentally handicapped; the Santa Toy Club; the Salvation Army; the North Okanagan Neurological Association; the transition house; Upper Room Mission; Venture Training Centre, which is a workshop centre for the mentally handicapped; the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; the old age pensioners; the B.C. branch of the Kidney Foundation; Vernon Jubilee Hospital; B.C. Lions Society for Crippled Children; Vernon Community Arts Council; St. John Ambulance; the Gateby Intermediate Care Residence, which is an extended-care home for the elderly;

[ Page 6593 ]

the North Okanagan Recycling Society; the Canadian Paraplegic Association; and Timmy's Christmas Telethon. That's over 25 different organizations that this one group, through their proceeds, have distributed the money to through the community.

With the commercial halls you can run two games a day. At seven days a week, that's 14 games a week. That means that a total of 14 organizations have access to that bingo dollar. So we come down from a total of 110 organizations to a handful of organizations. Yes, they're making a lot more money from the proceeds of bingo. Some of them are in a very healthy situation as a result of the commercial halls.

The critical issue here is the transfer of funds from the community at large to a rather select group of individuals — 14 in total for each hall — that can be accommodated through these commercial halls. What is really happening here is that there is more money being made, but it's going into fewer and fewer hands as a result of that.

That has been the situation in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has called for a public inquiry of their bingos. It's been the situation in Manitoba, which has basically gone a long way toward tightening their regulations vis-à-vis the commercial bingo halls. The situation in Calgary is very much the same.

The manager of the local Legion hall in Vernon was also the manager of a hall in the Calgary area. I'm quoting here from an article of May 25, 1985 from the Vernon Daily News. The gentleman's name is Mr. Stan Morrison. These are the words that he has to say, in light of his experience with commercial halls both here and in Alberta:

"'We can't compete with the big halls. They triple the payout that we do.' Morrison said that the bingos run by charitable groups have been responsible for supporting over 110 non-profit groups in Vernon. 'It's possible that commercial halls may generate more money,' but he adds that the money will not be distributed as evenly as it is now. I saw every club and community bingo wiped out in Calgary. I saw commercial games kill community fund-raising efforts."'

So he's citing direct experiences with these commercial halls.

I've had a number of conversations directly on the air with Mr. Tom Capozzi, who is one of the organizers of Dabbers, which is the commercial establishment up in the Okanagan. Mr. Capozzi has confirmed that Dabbers runs two games a day, seven days a week and charges $300 for the rental of the hall during the day, and $500 for rental during the evening. So that's creaming off $800 a day in rent. It's a guaranteed take. The rent must be paid, and they don't take any chances. That's $292,000 a year for each hall. They now have, I think, three halls: one just opened in Vernon in the back of the Bennett's hardware store, one is operating in Kelowna, and one is operating out of a hotel owned, I believe, by Mr. Skalbania in Penticton. That's three halls with a combined take of approximately $1 million a year in the Okanagan area alone. The potential is much greater. I guess this is a philosophical question. Should the proceeds of these bingo games be going into the hands of private entrepreneurs? Should bingo be reserved for the needy or the greedy?

It's true that the commercial halls have bigger draws. There's no question about it. They have the power of advertising. They have a guaranteed take. They can offer bigger prizes. In short, they can out-compete the small charities for the bingo dollar.

Again, to reinforce the critical issue, even though more money is being made, there are fewer and fewer organizations that can benefit from the proceeds of the commercial bingo establishments.

I'd like to point out that when I first brought up this issue, I asked for four things. Firstly, I asked the minister to consider the hiring of sufficient inspectors for the bingo operations. The minister had fired, or laid off, whatever you want to call it, but I guess they were basically fired — whatever term you wish to use, they're no longer there. Four of the six bingo inspectors are gone. There are only two left, located in the Victoria area. That is not sufficient.

Now the minister argues that the job can be covered by the local RCMP. My argument is that they're already overworked and understaffed, and I don't feel that they can give the job justice. The minister also indicated that one of the reasons that the positions were terminated was that the inspectors didn't really know the details of the job: they weren't sufficiently briefed or experienced. That seems to be a strange thing to do — to fire a person. It seems that perhaps a little more training in the responsibilities would be the way to go.

I also asked for a non-partisan inquiry. Nothing has happened as a result of that. I've asked for the minister to consider more extensive regulations, not to close the commercial halls but to make sure that the traditional charities — the church-basement bingos, the Lions organizations — can continue to compete on an equitable basis with these commercial halls. I've also pointed out that perhaps until we tighten up on these regulations we should consider a moratorium on the new halls. Nothing has been done.

The minister previously in the House indicated his staff was bringing down a report. We've asked the minister to table that report. He doesn't consider that this report should be tabled, for what reasons I don't know. I'd like to know what it says. It's a report that I think contains information of critical importance to the public out there, and I say the minister is abrogating his public responsibility by not publishing that information.

[5:00]

I would also like to ask the minister why he has basically refused to initiate any impartial inquiry. It does bring into question whether there's any underlying reason. Is the minister, for example, aware that Dabbers is owned by Great West Management, which is run apparently by the Capozzi family, as was stated on CBC? Is the minister aware that Dabbers rents a building from a certain firm in the north Okanagan area called Benwest Holdings? Is the minister also aware that Benwest Holdings is profiting from the proceeds of commercial bingos? And is the minister aware that the Premier owns securities in this organization? And could that perhaps be the overriding reason why he is afraid to call a public inquiry? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered in this regard.

Just to back up a bit and refresh the minister's memory, I made reference to possible infractions that may have taken place in the operation of one particular establishment, and because my time is limited I'll perhaps expand on that a little bit later, and ask the minister if he wishes to reply to any of the statements.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I've picked up some of his comments, Mr. Chairman. On the business of Benwest Holdings — you call them Benwest Holdings or some name like

[ Page 6594 ]

that — you're attempting to use those old socialist smear tactics again. The information I have is that Benwest Holdings is a trust for the grandchildren of Mrs. W.A.C. Bennett. You're suggesting that the Premier of British Columbia has some direct involvement with Benwest Holdings, you know, attempting to smear the Premier, which happens from time to time from across the way.

Now on the lotteries....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I never make any reference to your former police activities, do I?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

One thing the member fails to understand — he's not prepared to understand — is the fact that these large bingo halls that seat approximately 600 people are merely landlords. They merely rent space to non-profit and charitable organizations. He's not prepared to accept that premise. I want to say that the province of Manitoba have had a substantial degree of difficulties with bingo operations, and essentially their regulations, which were brought down effective June 1, 1984, turn all the operators of large commercial bingo halls strictly into landlords. Prior to that there was a direct involvement by the owner of the hall.

Here in British Columbia we attempt very carefully to ensure that there is a clear division between the non-profit and charitable organization and that of hall rental. We don't want any direct involvement in the bingo by the owner of the hall.

The other issue raised by the member.... He talks about the fact that there's probably a diminishing of revenue to the charitable organizations because of these large bingo halls which have been established in many communities of British Columbia. I suggest that the revenue derived by non-profit and charitable organizations is substantially greater and that therefore the charitable organizations, because of the percentage requirement, will receive substantially more revenue from holding a bingo in the large bingo hall.

There's nothing stopping a non-profit or charitable organization from continuing to operate a bingo game in their traditional location. There's nothing to stop non-profit or charitable organizations from joining together to have a large bingo hall where they are not only the operator but the landlord as well. There's absolutely nothing in the regulations to prevent that from taking place. So they have the right to do that.

Now the member talks about some of the organizations that have been hurt by the establishment of these large bingo halls in the province. I'm going to give you the names of the various non-profits that operate in the community of Kelowna. I wonder whether you're prepared to suggest that these various non-profit organizations aren't worthy of receiving funds for charitable purposes.

In the Dabbers hall we have: Kelowna International Festival Society; CNIB (Kelowna chapter); Kelowna Family Day Care Society; Kelowna Central Lions Club; Crisis Line Volunteer Committee of Community Resources; Canadian Ski Patrol System; Westbank Association for Youth Development; Kelowna International Triathlon Society; Okanagan Neurological Society; the child development centre; Kelowna and District SHARE Society; Options — which is the Society for Community Concerns; Westbank and District Boys' and Girls' Club; and the Kelowna Youth Resources Society.

In the Kelowna Bingo Palace there are the Okanagan Mainline Junior Football Society; Kelowna Family Day Care Society; Kelowna Baseball Association; Kelowna and District Boys' and Girls' Club; Central Okanagan Emergency Shelter Society; Big Brothers of Kelowna; Sweet Adelines (Kelowna chapter) ; Kiwanis International Club; Children/Adults with Learning Disabilities; Central Okanagan Sailing Association; the child development centre's parents' auxiliary; Rutland Youth Soccer Club; Kelowna senior baseball; and the Rotary Club of Okanagan Mission.

In the other bingo hall, the Four Seasons community hall, we have: the Westbank Indian Band Youth Recreation Society; Westbank and District Boys' and Girls' Club building committee, the Westbank Indian Council; the Central Registry of Community Resources; the Central Okanagan Indian Friendship Society — which you identified, I think, a little earlier as having shut down their bingo palace or parlour or hall or whatever you want to call it, but they're now in the Four Seasons community hall; and last but not least, the Kinsmen Club of Westbank.

Those are the non-profit and charitable societies that are participating in bingos in these three bingo halls in the community of Kelowna. They are making a contribution to their various organizations and charitable endeavours in the community. I don't know why the member consistently thinks they shouldn't have a right to do so. There's nothing preventing some of these other organizations that have bingo halls from continuing to have bingos. There's nothing preventing them from participating in the existing bingo halls that are established in Kelowna. There's nothing preventing them from opening another bingo hall of equal size; among themselves they can unite. If the rents are as exorbitant as you suggest they are, there is room for competition in the community of Kelowna, and therefore they should look at the opportunities that present themselves if the rents are that exorbitant. If they're referred to as exorbitant, well, I'm sure there's ample opportunity for them to compete.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In his rebuttal the minister in fact confirmed my statement that I made earlier. I'm going to take you through a little arithmetic quiz, if the Chairman will permit. I think everyone here realizes that if you run two games a day and have seven days in a week, that allows a total of 14 organizations to participate. I think the minister would agree with me. So that's 14 games a week from one hall. The minister has already indicated that there are three halls operating. Fourteen games a week from three halls means, if you add it up and round it off, that about 42 can participate. The minister had in fact identified, if my count was correct, wandering along with him through that convoluted logic of t his, approximately 28 organizations that he named — approximately 14 for the first two and approximately seven for the last....

The very point I was trying to make with the minister was that if we fill up every spot every day of the week with three commercial halls, the greatest number of charities that can be accommodated is 42. From one non-commercial establishment — that's the Legion in the Vernon area — I've identified over 25 charities that that organization gives to. That was one. There are over 110 organizations in the Vernon area. Over 110 individual community groups benefited from the proceeds of bingos through the Legion, the Elks club, the

[ Page 6595 ]

Indian Friendship Centre, etc. The very point I'm trying to make is what the minister confirmed. Yes, there is more money being made with the commercial bingos. Yes, some groups are making much larger profits than they've experienced before. And yes, because of that there are fewer organizations able to benefit from those bingo proceeds. As a matter of fact, there is only so much of the bingo dollar to go around. The community only has so much disposable income to generate in bingo proceeds. That money is being funnelled into fewer and fewer organizations. That is the very point I am trying to make — a point, thank you very much, Mr. Minister, that you have in fact confirmed.

With regard to the allegation of smearing other members of this House, it's nothing of the sort. It's simply presenting very factual evidence. Benwest Holdings is in fact the owner of the Bennett hardware complex in the Vernon area. It was confirmed on CBC — not once but a number of times — that Great West Management, which is the operative company behind Dabbers, in fact rents the facilities from Benwest. The last public disclosure form of a Mr. William Richards Bennett lists Benwest Holdings as securities held and also being part owner of that. I was simply asking the minister whether his reluctance to proceed with an impartial inquiry at all reflected the evidence that I've just presented to him. We have the Premier of this province directly involved in profiting from the proceeds of these bingos.

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It's not phony. We have the declaration right here.

I'd ask the minister: does his reluctance to initiate an impartial inquiry have anything to do with the fact that his boss is indirectly involved in the proceeds of commercial bingos?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Back to the estimates of the minister.

[5:15]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Going back to a topic of debate that brought some attention in this House a few weeks ago, the minister requested that I supply evidence of alleged infractions that appeared to have taken place. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) in fact suggested that I might be bending the law by not submitting those. After clearing it with the principals involved, I was given the okay to submit that evidence — three letters in fact. I'd like to ask the minister, first of all, if he's investigated this matter at all. I'd like to ask the minister whether he's received a report from the Attorney-General on this matter. I'd like to ask the minister whether he in fact requested the Attorney-General to investigate this matter. I would also like to ask the minister, if an investigation has taken place, why have those three people not even been contacted by either the minister or the Attorney-General's office with regard to their sworn statements?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must caution that the minister can only answer for himself.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right. You know, the member filed some letters from volunteers in his constituency office who apparently phoned some bingo operator that they attempted to trap through the questions they asked him. Then to cover himself up he tabled these letters from the volunteers in his constituency office, for the Attorney-General to investigate. Well, if you've tabled those letters with the Attorney-General, you'd better ask the question of the Attorney-General on that matter.

On the issue of suggesting that one bingo operator in Kelowna makes contributions to 25 charitable organizations within that Vernon region, I suggest that in Kelowna there are 28....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You don't have to remind me. I'll be there pretty soon.

According to the member for Okanagan North, there are 28 operators in Kelowna operating out of three bingo halls, which means that if they all contribute to 25 different charitable organizations, there's a potential 1,200 charitable organizations receiving contributions from the non-profits that conduct the bingos in that community. So the potential is immense in view of the fact that the operators in those bingo halls are making substantially more money than has ever been experienced by other bingo operators heretofore.

The member asks me whether there should be an inquiry, and if I'm not going to conduct an inquiry it's because I'm attempting to cover up the relationship between Benwest, the Premier and Great West Management, or some firm like that. I suggest that those are smear tactics, smear statements that aren't worthy of response. If something is working well, why fix it? The lottery halls in British Columbia and the regulations.... While from time to time there is a need to adjust the regulations, we did address them last November. I think the regulations are appropriate in British Columbia. They have been shown to officials operating in other provinces; they think we have first-class regulations and that we can conduct honest and straightforward bingo operations in British Columbia. So the member can twist and turn and attempt to suggest that there is some wrongdoing in the operation of bingo halls in British Columbia, but I reject that completely. There isn't.

He suggested that Saskatchewan is in the process of having an inquiry. I suggest to the member that Saskatchewan has a particular problem which is not evident in British Columbia. There is no need for an inquiry. I'm not going to listen to alarmists, people who go around smearing other people and suggesting that there is wrongdoing in the operation of bingos in British Columbia. You can yell and scream all you want, and smear and suggest wrongdoings as much as you want. There's no need for an inquiry in British Columbia.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman. I simply bring up some factual information and it's called a smear campaign. However, that may be the minister's response. That's always the minister's response. This minister is totally insensitive to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that these charitable organizations have approached members on this side of the House in terms of their concerns that they're losing money. Some of them are going belly-up in the competition for the bingo dollar as a result of the proliferation of these commercial halls. That's the issue at hand. I can't see how the minister can be so insensitive to these historical charities as to completely ignore their requests.

[ Page 6596 ]

How do you know there is no wrongdoing, Mr. Minister? You haven't even answered my question as to whether or not you've proceeded with an investigation with the evidence that I've supplied to you. I suggest that....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You didn't supply any evidence.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I supplied you evidence!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I supplied not one piece of evidence, not two pieces of evidence, but three corroborating pieces of evidence which indicate that possible infractions have been taking place. If the minister has not proceeded with an investigation in the light of that evidence, I suggest that he is shirking his responsibility. Those people haven't been contacted. Nothing has been asked of them. They went in there to investigate a matter that came to the attention of our office. They asked some very straightforward questions, got some very straightforward answers and immediately suggested some significant concerns in terms of the possible infractions of the present regulation. The minister has the unmitigated gall to stand there and say that it's a smear campaign, and that he's not going to respond to such wild-eyed tactics.

I suggest to the minister that he's evading his responsibility in this issue, and he's being totally insensitive to the needs of those charitable organizations not only in the north Okanagan or on the coast but throughout British Columbia. These commercial halls are draining the bingo dollar from those charities into the back pockets of private organizations. It's time to ask yourself the question, Mr. Minister, as to whether bingos in this province should be for the needy or for the greedy in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: I first became involved with bingos as a volunteer for a non-profit organization 36 years ago. I had more experience with it during that time than anyone else in the House, I would think. For the first 25 years or so it was completely illegal, and every time I attended one of these bingos I wondered whether that would be the evening that the police would march in and close it down. It never happened while I was there, although the police did move into a few bingos in Nanaimo over a period of time.

We have spent a lot of time in this session talking about bingos. I have yet to hear anyone mention the customer. Not a single person has had any concern at all for the people who are playing. Collectively, as I worked with them, I hated them. Ninety-five percent of them are chain-smokers, and if you ever went into one of those halls and experienced the atmosphere, you would feel the same way. They'll do almost anything to get the seat of their choice, including getting there hours ahead of time, and they literally fight with others to get their way in one of these halls. When people walk into a bingo hall to play bingo, something happens to them collectively. Individually, you know, I love them — they're all voters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does this insidious experience have to do with the minister's estimates?

MR. STUPICH: It has to do with this discussion, because in all of the hours that we've spent in this session talking about bingos and bingo halls and bingo operators and bingo palaces, no one has mentioned the customers. I do have some feeling for those individuals. Some of them have no other social outlet than to go to a bingo hall. My mother is 96 years old. The only thing left to her is to meet people in a bingo hall. There's nothing left. That's her only entertainment, and her only social experience. I wouldn't want the minister to start an investigation that was going to interfere with the operation of bingo in Nanaimo in any way — or anywhere else.

As for the talk about bingo halls, bingo palaces or bingo operators, this is not the first time it's happened. Every hall that's built in Nanaimo or anywhere else is the newest one in that community that day. Certainly, the CCF hall in Nanaimo right now is the newest one for that particular activity to take place. When the minister talks about 14 organizations using one hall in Kelowna, there must be some 28 using the CCF hall in Nanaimo. You don't have to have 4 weeks or 52 weeks a year; some organizations have 13 weeks a year, and that happens.

Certainly in my experience in Nanaimo, when the minister's staff felt that some charitable organizations were getting more than they were entitled to, they interfered and said that organization A should have a bingo only one out of four weeks, rather than every week, and that spread the largesse around, if you like. But in any case, he didn't interfere with the people who were playing, and that worked. I don't suppose he had the authority to do it. I don't know the staff had the authority, but they had a lot of muscle, and when they suggested that certain things happen in that way and that it be divided up under more organizations, then it happened.

Prior to the building of that hall, the newest hall in town was the Mount Benson Legion, and that almost destroyed Branch 10 Legion's bingos. When the Super-Valu closed down and the Elks moved in and opened up a hall, that hurt a lot of bingos. Every time a new building opens up, initially it hurts other organizations, and then the crowd seems to build and the volume increases, and more and more people are playing bingo. I don't know why. I couldn't come to do it myself, but it happens.

The halls are getting better. They have machinery now that will actually remove some of that smoke. You can almost breathe in the newest halls. To think people would complain about having halls like that and say to people: "You should go back to the church basements"! The first bingo that I worked in was a room large enough to hold 30 people, and the smoke was so thick you could hardly see from one end of that small room to the other.

Ours is not the last one to be built. A new one is going to open up in Nanaimo in July, I believe. Now if our rent is too high, which it isn't — the minister gave the figures in the House — it comes out to $7 per square foot per year. That's not much to charge today for a new building. A new one is opening up; I don't know what their rates will be, but they'll have to be competitive, and the CCF hall rent will have to be competitive, or the crowds will go elsewhere and the operators will go elsewhere. It's the ones that are successful, the licensees, if you like.... I don't know how many there are

[ Page 6597 ]

— I've lost count, but certainly substantially more than 14 in the CCF hall in Nanaimo.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Twenty-one in the hall in Nanaimo. There could be more; there may well be more. If some of those move to the new hall that's opening up, there will be others coming in quickly to fill the void. There's no problem, Mr. Chairman; the organization will be there. The organizations that do best are the ones who are adventurous enough, or gambling enough if you like, in some cases to leave their own small hall and rent space in the large one. Then their own hall is available for other activities. Those halls where bingos were carried on previously are not left empty. There are still opportunities there for social activities of other kinds.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not in favour.... I think we don't need an investigation. I think we do need the inspectors: we do need the policing. I do agree with the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) to the effect that the terminated inspectors should be rehired or replaced, because it is important from the point of view of the people who are playing. I'm not so concerned about the individual charitable organization, but to make sure that the people who are playing get a fair deal it's important that we do maintain the inspection service. But certainly in my experience I see no need for anything much beyond that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't know what more I can say after hearing from the member for Nanaimo. On the issue of bingos and operations he's had substantially more experience than I have. I guess I'll respond to him on the issue of inspectors. I recognize there's a need for inspectors, especially with the proliferation of bingo halls that's taking place throughout British Columbia. I hope, within the next very few weeks, to get some inspectors established regionally throughout British Columbia, and to ensure that they're properly trained in the matters of bingos and various other lottery schemes.

[5:30]

I want to say, first of all, that the bingo games in British Columbia are honest and straightforward and that those people who are participating in bingo games in British Columbia are not being hurt. The customers are getting as best as can be described a fair deal in playing bingo throughout British Columbia. Our regulations and our inspections will ensure that that continues to prevail.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A lot of the points that my colleague for Nanaimo brought up are certainly worth consideration. One of the points that has been made, both by me and in previous discussion, is the fact that the commercial bingos run a number of games each week. Well, two a day, seven days a week, allows them 14 games. In addition to that, the fact is that each charitable organization can operate one bingo each week, which allows a charity, for example, to entertain 52 bingos a year.

I want to re-emphasize the point, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that there very well may be a place in British Columbia for commercial bingos. I'm not denying that. What I am saying is, let's have a look at the present regulations, because there seems to be considerable danger in the way they are presently set up. These commercial halls are causing undue duress to the other charities that have been trying to run their own operations. Some ways of doing that, and I refer to the Manitoba Lottery Foundation.... The regulations for licensed bingo events, for example, restrict the hall to a maximum of five bingo events in a week. We have each hall allowed a maximum of 14. If we restricted.... Maybe it doesn't need to be five, but maybe we should have a look at whether, if we reduced that maximum allowable, it would relieve some of that competitive pressure on these other charities.

There is also another avenue to explore, and that's whether or not we should look at restricting the number of times any particular charity can participate in a year. As it is now, 52 times a year, once a week, restricts the number of charities that have access to these commercial halls. If we reduce the number of times each charity can participate, it would allow more access to these commercial halls, and therefore more of the non-profit organizations and the charities in the community that do wish to use the commercial halls would have access to those halls. They can make the decision as to whether they want to or not, but I think we have to address the concerns that certainly have been brought up time and time again on this issue.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It's all right, Mr. Chairman, I remember when I had my first beer.

Looking at these regulations and maybe modifying them somewhat would relieve the present inequitable situation and hopefully would resolve the crisis that exists with some of these charities basically having to close down because, number one, they can't get space in the commercial establishments; number two, when they do get space in there they end up losing money or losing more money than before — their take is not as great because of the high rental costs. Let's make it a little more equitable. I'm sure the minister would agree with me that it would be worth a second look.

MR. MITCHELL: It's funny, when I listen to the minister speak and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) talk about some of the background that went into making the bingo operations a legal method of raising money for community groups. Really what is happening today is not any change in what is happening with the present Social Credit government of privatization. Where the regulations that were in place when bingo was made legal.... I remember when bingo was illegal. I remember when the community groups were demanding or requesting or pleading for an opportunity to be able to raise money for their local organizations: sports groups, community groups and church groups. They petitioned the government and all elected officials to give an opportunity to raise some money from something that a vast majority of the people have; that is, the desire to gamble. They're addicts. Gamblers and bingo players, people who play the one-armed slot machines, people who go to Reno — they're addicts. Really what the community groups wanted was a chance to zoom in on these addicts and get some of the money. That's what they were doing. The previous Social Credit government and the Liberal government in Ottawa felt that there was a group of addicts out there that wanted to donate their money through bingo, so they legalized the present bingo operations. It was a good idea. It gave community groups, legions and churches and sports groups.... They brought in a set of regulations that were

[ Page 6598 ]

basically intelligent and fair. They allowed a lot of community organizations the opportunity to go out and put in a few hours of volunteer work to raise money on the backs of the addicts. That's what they are: they're bingo addicts. A lot of my friends are bingo addicts. In fact, a lot of the people who vote for me are bingo addicts.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: They all gamble. They gamble on a reliable person. They're addicts. A lot of them felt that because of this addiction, they were participating and sharing some of their money with a sports group, with the minor hockey, with the various organizations, with their own churches of one denomination or another. There was a certain amount of satisfaction.

This government is a government of vested interest. It is a government that is dedicated to making bigger and stronger monopolies. This is really what they're setting up. A lot of us felt relieved when they made bingo legal. A lot of policemen felt relieved when we didn't have to look the other way as we went down the street when we happened to know there were a lot of people going into a church basement, and they were spending their money maybe illegally. We never looked, and we were happy when the government made it legal. But now you're going to see a certain group zero in on these addicts, and they are going to make a monopoly of it.

The people who are going to suffer are the community groups out in every one of our ridings. When you talk to some of your own officials, Mr. Minister, who know some of the problems in the northern ridings and some of the abuses that certain families are going through, with welfare money that should be going for food for their children being frittered away....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: That is happening, and you know it. That is happening because there is a group of people who are going to exploit those addicts, as the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) stated. A million and a half extra dollars are going to be taken out of that community. It's not going to stay in the community because of the greed of individuals. I know that is your free enterprise philosophy, your monopoly desire for some people to make more money than others.

I think some serious consideration should be given as to how the larger halls are set up, and how the changes that are taking place in the community.... There are a number of people who have that desire to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But it's not there. All gambling is.... Only the house makes money on gambling. I know the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) will agree with me that that is where the money is made.

I'm not arguing about where the money is made. I'm pleading that the minister look at the operation of the bingos. If there are going to be addicts, if there are people who want to go out and donate their money, he should make an opportunity for that money to remain in the community and not be siphoned off for some of their political friends. I say they are their political friends. I know that the promises being made are being made because there is going to be instant wealth. I don't care how you operate it; the return on the investment for any of these buildings is usurious. There is no way that you're paying a fair return for renting a building and hiring people to set up the chairs. It's a way of ripping off the community.

I say to you, look at it. Don't took at it with your....

AN HON. MEMBER: Blinkers on?

MR. MITCHELL: No, you've not got blinkers; you've got greed in your eyes. You don't have blinkers; you have these dollar signs just going on and on and on because your friends are going to make some money, and that is not what....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 60. Could we please get back to debate on the vote, and may we please have order in the House.

MR. MITCHELL: But we have interruptions from these government members. Will you keep them in order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. REID: How does that affect Nanaimo?

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not worrying about how it affects Nanaimo; I'm worrying that it's going to affect the community in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I was just referring to part of my audience over here. I wasn't talking to him, I was referring to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the vote, please, Mr. Member.

MR. MITCHELL: Okay. I said at the beginning that what you're seeing is a change in the gambling patterns in British Columbia. You're seeing the changes in the gambling patterns in Canada. I am convinced that if we don't look at it so that it's going to affect the community evenly and fairly and properly, as previous administrations did when they legalized bingo, when they made it a community operation that was going to assist the community groups.... This was the intent they had. They realized there were a lot of illegal addicts around. It's going to go on and on with your commercial bingo until the stink is so bad that even the minister will realize what's happening. I don't know if it will happen before the next election, but it will happen. It's happening in every other province that has had commercial bingo for any length of time.

[5:45]

Really, what you're seeing is the thin edge of the wedge of bringing in legalized gambling. You're bringing in legalized gambling commercially, and pretty soon I predict that you are going to see set up in British Columbia the Renos of the south. You are going to see the gambling casinos, and the pressure is going to come from the Mafia and those who are involved in gambling, through that government, to set up the Renos, because this is what happened with bingo when the bingos were small and they were let in for the community

[ Page 6599 ]

groups: now they are being corralled by the larger groups, and the next step you're going to see, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Let us have order in the House, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from these rowdy people who want to call it quits.

But I say, give it serious thought. Don't think it's political smears, because you and I and the member for Nanaimo have watched the changes over the last 10 or 15 years and it's quite easy to predict the changes that are going to take place in the next 5 or 10 years. If we don't get a handle on it and look at it from a community point of view instead of looking at it and jumping to the tune of certain political friends, we are going to live to regret that we didn't take a stand, that we didn't take a position on it. We can laugh and giggle and it's not going to work, because gambling is here to stay. People are going to abuse it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wouldn't bet on that part.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, the Minister of Forests might not bet on it, but if I was betting on the way he handles the forestry I know that I wouldn't bet on his record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member continues on vote 60.

MR. MITCHELL: The Minister of Forests interrupted me. I just had to answer him.

I'm sincerely saying, Mr. Chairman, if you have any pull with the minister, let him sit down and listen to some of the opposition that is coming from the churches, the sports group, the community. Listen to what is being said and don't sit back and only worry about the flashing dollar signs in the eyes of certain friends of theirs, and look at what's happening to the gambling operation in British Columbia. If we don't do it now, we're going to have to have a royal commission like they have in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba and all the rest of the places that have gone through the steps that we are starting right now.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, just a few words on lotteries in general. I certainly think that the minister has done a very worthwhile job in seeing that the profits of the lotteries are distributed to the very needy organizations throughout British Columbia. I refer to some of the grants that have been given to medical research, heritage organizations, community volunteer firehalls, community halls, student travel allocations and many other things.

I look around my constituency and there is a very large number of happy people, who have been a part of putting in a lot of volunteer hours through community efforts, who have worked on projects that have been made possible by the amount of money that has been distributed and allocated from the lottery proceeds.

I'd also like to compliment the minister on the location of the B.C. Lottery Corporation in the city of Kamloops. It was a very good and positive move, with 130 new jobs and more to come for the city of Kamloops as a result of that move. I think the minister made a very wise decision in doing what he did. As a result of the fact that British Columbia represented, by far, the largest amount of revenue that was going into the Lottery Corporation, the logical place for that headquarters is certainly in British Columbia.

In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to the minister — I know he's had other requests — to please give serious consideration to reopening the recreational facilities assistance program. There are a lot of projects in British Columbia. I have a pecuniary interest in one in my constituency inasmuch as I have personally been involved in attempting to get a new community centre in my home town of Salmon Arm.

I know that that community centre will not get off the ground without the assistance of the Lottery Corporation and that RFAP being reopened. So I would appeal to the minister, and I am sure that he will use his good judgment and examine this request in detail. As I say, I know there have been other requests, but please give this serious consideration, because the people in my community are waiting for an early response. They have deadlines to meet, and there are a lot of jobs to be created and a lot of activity will come as a result of that fund being opened up.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, my head is just swimming with all this information that we've had, and we have to have the night to digest it. I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

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 5:52 p.m.